AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Curgenven, J.—It has been held in Ponnu-swami Asari v. Palaniandi Mudaliar 56 Ind. Cas. 612 : 11 L.W. 602 : 27 M.L.T. 266 that under
Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the suit may be added to the appeal, as respondent in order that a memorandum of
objections may be filed against him. The question of the effect of limitation does not seem to have been raised and considered in that case, but a
recent Privy Council decision in AIR 1927 252 (Privy Council) has been brought to my notice in which it has been held that a defendant in respect
of whom the plaintiff has allowed the dismissal of his suit to become time-barred without making him a party to the appeal is no longer a person in
the words of Order XLI, Rule 20 of the CPC ""interested in the result of the appeal."" Reading the two cases together I am inclined to the view that
where, as here, a party has not filed an appeal against another party not himself an appellant, and the time for so doing has expired he cannot under
Order XLI, Rule 20 of the CPC have him added for the purpose of filing a memorandum of objections. Even if there is actually jurisdiction so to
do, I would not pass such an order unless very unusual grounds were shown, which I do not find here. The 4th defendant has obtained a decree
for maintenance and the plaintiffs have not chosen to appeal against it and the time for doing so is now expired. I do not think that they should be
permitted to avail themselves of this alternative procedure in order now to attack it, I, therefore, dismiss this application with costs.