1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15549 OF 2017

Arising Out Of SLP (C) NO. 31212 of 2014

Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia ……Appellant

Versus

Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased)

Through LRs & Ors ……Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Leave Granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated

05.03.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court in Special

Civil Application No. 16985 of 2011 dismissing the

Special Civil Application filed by the appellant,

consequently affirming the order passed by the trial

Court rejecting the application filed under Order 1

Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
NEELAM GULATI

referred to as the “Code”).

Date: 2017.10.03
16:22:53 IST
Reason:
 2

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as

under:

The appellant filed a suit on 24.06.2008 seeking to

set aside a sale deed executed in March 1995 in respect

of a parcel of land which was purchased by defendant

no. 7. As on the date of filing of the suit, defendant

no. 7 was already dead. Upon the report of the process

server to this effect, the trial Court on 31.03.2009

ordered that the suit had abated as against defendant

no. 7. Initially, the appellant filed an application

under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code for bringing on

record the legal representatives of deceased defendant

no. 7. The trial Court while rejecting the said

application on 09.09.2009 observed thus:

“According to the ratio laid down in

the above said cases Order 22 Rule 4
of Code will apply only when the party
dies during the pendency of the
proceeding. Further held that a suit
against dead person is admittedly a
nullity and therefore, Order XXII Rule
4 cannot be invoked. Further held
that the provisions of Order XXII Rule
4 of Code and Order 1 Rule 10 of Code
are different and independent.
Therefore, according to heirs of
 3

deceased defendant, the heirs cannot

be joined as party because the suit is
filed against dead person.
Now in this case, the endorsement for
the bailiff for the death of defendant
No. 7 made on 31.01.2009 and the
present application is filed on
20.05.2009. The application is filed
for setting aside abatement and to
join the heirs in this suit.
Moreover, there is no case of the
plaintiff that he has no knowledge
about the death of defendant No. 7 or
he has made inquiry. Therefore, as
per the judgment produced by the
defendant, the suit against dead
person is nullity. Moreover, the
plaintiff has not mentioned the
provision under which he has filed the
present application. Moreover, the
plaintiff has remedy against the heirs
therefore, no injustice will cause to
him. Moreover, there are other
defendants on record.
Under these circumstances, the
application cannot be allowed. Hence,
I pass the following order in the
interest of justice.
ORDER
1. The application is not allowed.
2. No order as to cost.”

Thereafter the appellant chose to file an

application for impleading the legal representatives of

 4

deceased defendant no. 7 on record, under Order 1 Rule

10 of the Code. The aforementioned application also

came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 03.09.2011,

and confirmed by the High Court by passing the impugned

judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/original

plaintiff contended that the subsequent application

under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code could not be dismissed by

applying the principle of res-judicata merely because

the application filed earlier under Order 22 Rule 4 of

the Code was dismissed on account of

non-maintainability; that the appellant has accepted

the order passed by the trial Court on the application

filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code since the

reasons assigned by the trial Court were proper and

acceptable inasmuch as the legal representatives cannot

be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code

in the suit filed against defendant no. 7, who had died

prior to filing of the suit; the provisions of Order

22 Rule 4 of the Code will apply only if the sole, or

 5

one of the defendants, dies during the subsistence of

the suit. Since defendant no.7 had expired prior to

the filing of the suit, the only course open for the

appellant was to implead the legal

representatives/heirs of deceased defendant no.7 on

record under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code; hence, the

earlier order rejecting the application filed under

Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code as not maintainable will

not operate as res-judicata for entertaining the

subsequent application for impleading the legal

representatives of deceased defendant no.7, under Order

1 Rule 10 of the Code. As the appellant did not have

knowledge about the death of defendant No.7, the suit

has a right to survive and the mistake committed by the

appellant in not arraying the legal representatives of

deceased defendant no. 7 at the time of filing of the

suit is a bona fide mistake and not a deliberate one.

Since such mistake has occurred in good faith, the

right to continue the suit against the legal

representatives of deceased defendant no.7 remains.

 6

The trial has not yet begun and hence the issue of

delay, if any, in bringing the legal representatives on

record, will not prejudice the legal representatives of

defendant No.7. Since the proposed parties are

necessary parties to the suit and their impleadment

cannot prejudice anybody, the interests of justice

require bringing of the legal representatives of

deceased defendant no. 7 on record.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents relying upon the catena of judgments

reported in Ram Prasad Dagduram vs Vijay Kumar Motilal

Mirakhanwala & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 278, Madhukar

Ramachandra Keni vs Vasant Jagannath Patil & Ors., 2013

(4) Mh. L. J. 403, Jayalaxmi Janardhan Walawalkar &

Ors. vs Lilachand Laxmichand Kapasi & Ors., 1998 (3)

Mh. L. J. 618, Arora Enterprises Ltd. vs Indubhushan

Obhan 1997 (5) SCC 366 contended that the trial Court

as well as the High Court are justified in rejecting

the application for impleading the legal

representatives of deceased defendant no. 7 filed under

 7

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code; since the application

filed by the appellant initially under Order 22 Rule 4

of the Code was dismissed and as the second application

filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was for the

very same purpose, the Courts below were justified in

rejecting the application preferred under Order 1 Rule

10 of the Code. He further submits that the

application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code

to implead the legal representatives of deceased

defendant no.7 is not maintainable, since the appellant

has not questioned the earlier Order dated 09.09.2009

rejecting the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4

of the Code, and therefore the said order has attained

finality and binds the appellant; the appellant cannot

be allowed to file another application for the same

relief by invoking different provision of the Code.

5. The only question which is to be decided in this

appeal is, whether the legal representatives of one of

the defendants can be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10

of the Code where such defendant expired prior to the

 8

filing of the suit, particularly when the application

filed by the plaintiff to bring the legal

representatives of the deceased on record under Order

22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed earlier as not

maintainable.

6. The bare reading of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code

makes it clear that Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code applies

only in the case where the death of one of the several

defendants or the sole defendant occurs during the

subsistence of the suit. If one of the defendants has

expired prior to the filing of the suit, the legal

representatives of such deceased defendant cannot be

brought on record in the suit under Order 22 Rule 4 of

the Code. Before proceeding further, it is relevant

to note the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 and Sections

151 & 153 of the Code, which read thus:

“Order 1 Rule 10: Suit in name of

wrong plaintiff. –

1. Where a suit has been instituted

in the name of the wrong person as
plaintiff or where it is doubtful
whether it has been instituted in the
name of the right plaintiff, the Court
 9

may at any stage of the suit, if

satisfied that the suit has been
instituted through a bona fide
mistake, and that it is necessary for
the determination of the real matter
in dispute so to do, order any other
person to be substituted or added as
plaintiff upon such terms as the Court
things just.

2. Court may strike out or add

parties.- The Court may at any stage
of the proceedings, either upon or
without the application of either
party, and on such terms as may appear
to the Court to be just, order that
the name of any party improperly
joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, be struck out, and that the
name of any person who ought to have
been joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, or whose presence before
the Court may be necessary in order to
enable the court effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon and
settle all the questions involved in
the suit, be added.

3. No person shall be added as a

plaintiff suing without a next friend
or as the next friend of a plaintiff
under any disability without his
consent.

4. Where defendant added, plaint to

be amended.- where a defendant is
added, the plaint shall, unless the
Court otherwise directs, be amended in
such manner as may be necessary, and
amended copies of the summons and of
 10

the plaint shall be served on the new

defendant and, if the Court thinks
fit, on the original defendant.

5. Subject to the provisions of the

India Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of
1877), section 22, the proceedings as
against any person added as defendant
shall be deemed to have begun only on
the service of the summons.

Section 151: Saving of inherent powers

of Court - Nothing in this Code shall
be deemed to limit or otherwise affect
the inherent power of the Court to
make such orders as may be necessary
for the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court.

Section 153: General power to amend –

The Court may at any time, and on such
terms as to costs or otherwise as it
may think fit, amend any defect or
error in any proceeding in a suit; and
all necessary amendments shall be made
for the purpose of determining the
real question or issue raised by or
depending on such proceeding.

7. In the matter on hand, the sale was made in favour

of defendant no. 7, and the validity of the sale deed

was the subject matter of the suit. The purchaser of

the property, i.e. defendant no.7, though dead at the

time of filing the suit, was made one of the defendants

erroneously. The persons who are now sought to be

 11

impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code are the

legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 7.

Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the

presence of the legal representatives of the deceased

is necessary in order to enable the Court to

effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle

all the questions in the suit. Their presence is

necessary in the suit for the determination of the real

matter in dispute. Therefore, they are needed to be

brought on record, of course, subject to the law of

limitation, as contended under Section 21 of the

Limitation Act.

8. Merely because the earlier application filed by the

appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was

dismissed on 09.09.2009 as not maintainable, it will

not prohibit the plaintiff from filing another

application, which is maintainable in law. There was

no adjudication of the application to bring legal

representatives on record on merits by virtue of the

order dated 09.09.2009. On the other hand, the earlier

 12

application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was

dismissed by the trial Court as not maintainable,

inasmuch as defendant no. 7 had died prior to the

filing of the suit and that Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code

comes into the picture only when a party dies during

the pendency of the suit. The only course open to the

appellant in law was to file an application for

impleadment to bring on record the legal

representatives of deceased defendant no. 7 under Order

1 Rule 10 of the Code. Hence, the order passed by the

trial Court on the application filed under Order 22

Rule 4 of the Code, dated 09.09.2009, will not act as

res-judicata.

9. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code enables the Court to

add any person as a party at any stage of the

proceedings, if the person whose presence in Court is

necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively

and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the

questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of

multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects

 13

of the said provision. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code

empowers the Court to substitute a party in the suit

who is a wrong person with a right person. If the

Court is satisfied that the suit has been instituted

through a bona fide mistake, and also that it is

necessary for the determination of the real matter in

controversy to substitute a party in the suit, it may

direct it to be done. When the Court finds that in the

absence of the persons sought to be impleaded as a

party to the suit, the controversy raised in the suit

cannot be effectively and completely settled, the Court

would do justice by impleading such persons. Order 1

Rule 10(2) of the Code gives wide discretion to the

Court to deal with such a situation which may result in

prejudicing the interests of the affected party if not

impleaded in the suit, and where the impleadment of the

said party is necessary and vital for the decision of

the suit.

10. In the case of Vijay Kumar Motilal Mirakhanwala

(supra), a bench by majority held that the legal

 14

representatives of a party can be added under Order 1

Rule 10 of the Code, but the date on which they were

impleaded shall be the date on which the suit was

instituted by or against them. In the said matter,

this Court on facts held that the suit was barred by

limitation as per Section 22 of the Limitation Act of

1908. This Court, though it concluded that the Court

has got the power to join a particular person as a

party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, did not

interfere in the matter imasmuch as this Court found

that the suit was barred by limitation. It is relevant

to note that the said suit was of the year 1958. Since

the Limitation Act, 1963 (now in force) was at that

time not in existence, this Court applied the old

limitation law and held that the suit was barred by

limitation. As of now, the proviso to Section 21(1) of

the Limitation Act 1963 empowers the Court to direct

that the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted

on an earlier date, where the omission to include a new

plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in

 15

good faith. Therefore, it is open to the plaintiff in

the matter on hand to prove “good faith” on his part in

not including the legal representatives of deceased

defendant no. 7, during the course of trial of suit.

11. It would be relevant to note that in the Case of

Bhagwan Swaroop and Ors. vs Mool Chand and Ors., 1983

(2) SCC 132, this Court observed thus:

“4. It is true that it was incumbent

upon the appellants to implead the
heirs and legal representatives of
deceased respondent 1 in time. It is
equally true that the appellants were
negligent in moving the proper
application. We would not question the
finding of the High Court that
appellants 2, 3 and 4 knew about the
death of the deceased respondent 1.
This being a suit for partition of
joint family property, parties are
closely interrelated and it is
reasonable to believe that at least
some of the appellants must have
attended the funeral of deceased
respondent 1, as contended on behalf
of the contesting respondent 2. There
is some force in the contention that
when a specific provision is made as
provided in Order 22, R. 4, a resort
to the general provision like Order 1,
Rule 10 may not be appropriate. But
the laws of procedure are devised for
advancing justice and not impeding the
 16

same. In Sangram Singh v. Election

Tribunal, Kotah (AIR 1955 SC 425), this
Court observed that a code of
procedure is designed to facilitate
justice and further its ends; not a
penal enactment for punishment and
penalties; not a thing designed to
trip people up. This was reaffirmed in
Kalipar Das v. Bimal Krishna Sen(1983)
1 SCC 14.

5. In a suit for partition, the

position of plaintiffs and defendants
can be interchange-' able. It is that
each adopts the same position with the
other parties. Other features which
must be noticed are that the appeal
was filed somewhere in 1972. It has
not come up for hearing and the matter
came on Board only upon the
application of the second respondent
intimating to the Court that the 1st
respondent had died way back and as
his heirs and legal representatives
having not been substituted, the
appeal has abated. Wheels started
moving thereafter. Appellants moved an
application for substitution. The
matter did not end there. Heirs of
deceased respondent 1 then moved an
application for being brought on
record. If the application had been
granted, the appeal could have been
disposed of in the presence of all the
parties. The difficulty High Court
experienced in granting the
application disclosed with great
respect, a hyper-technical approach
which if carried to end may result in
miscarriage of justice. Who could have
made the most serious grievance about
 17

the failure of the appellants to

substitute the heirs and legal
representatives of deceased respondent
1? Obviously the heirs of deceased
respondent 1 were the persons vitally
interested in the outcome of the
appeal. They could have contended that
the appeal against them has abated and
their share has become unassailable.
That is not their case. They on the
contrary, want to be impleaded and
substituted as heirs and legal
representatives of deceased respondent
1. They had absolutely no grievance
about the delay in bringing them on
record. It is the second respondent
who is fighting both the appellants
and the 1st respondent who wants to
derive a technical advantage by this
procedural lapse. If the trend is to
encourage fairplay in action in
administrative law, it must all the
more inhere in judicial approach. Such
applications have to be approached
with this view whether substantial
justice is done between the parties or
technical rules of procedure are given
precedence over doing substantial
justice in Court. Undoubtedly, justice
according to law; law to be
administered to advance justice.”

12. This Court in the case of Karuppaswamy and Ors. vs

C. Ramamurthy, 1993 (4) SCC 41 has permitted the

plaintiff to modify the application filed by him under

Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code to make it an application

 18

under the provisions of Sections 151 and 153 of the

Code. In the said matter also the suit was filed

against a dead person. This Court proceeded further to

conclude that the plaintiff has shown good faith as

contemplated under Section 21(1) of Limitation Act and

hence the impleadment of the legal

representatives/heirs must date back to the date of the

presentation of the plaint. In the said matter, it was

observed thus:

“4. A comparative reading of the

proviso to Sub-section (1) shows that
its addition has made all the
difference. It is also clear that the
proviso has appeared to permit
correction of errors which have been
committed due to a mistake made in
good faith but only when the court
permits correction of such mistake. In
that event its effect is not to begin
from the date on which the application
for the purpose was made, or from the
date of permission but from the date
of the suit, deeming it to have been
correctly instituted on an earlier
date than the date of making the
application. The proviso to
Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the
Act is obviously in line with the
spirit and thought of some other
provisions in Part III of the Act such
as Section 14 providing exclusion of
 19

time of proceeding bona fide in court

without jurisdiction, when computing
the period of limitation for any suit,
and Section 17(1) providing a
different period of Limitation
starting when discovering a fraud or
mistake instead of the commission of
fraud or mistake. While invoking the
beneficent proviso to Sub-section (1)
of Section 21 of the Act an averment
that a mistake was made in good faith
by impleading a dead defendant in the
suit should be made and the court must
on proof be satisfied that the motion
to include the right defendant by
substitution or addition was just and
proper, the mistake having occurred in
good faith. The court's satisfaction
alone breaths life in the suit.

5. It is noteworthy that the trial

court did not attribute any neglect or
contumacy to the conduct of the
plaintiff-respondent. It was rather
observed that the plaintiff could have
known the date of the death of the
first defendant only by the counter
filed to IA 265 of 1975. Normally, if
he had known about the date of death
of the defendant, he would have filed
the suit in the first instance against
his heirs and legal representatives.
The trial court has also opined that
the plaintiff was ignorant as to such
death and that is why he filed IA 265
of 1975 under Order 22 Rule 4 of
C.P.C. The High Court too has recorded
a finding that there was nothing to
show that the plaintiff was aware of
the death of the first defendant and
yet knowing well about it, he would
 20

persist in filing the suit against a

dead person. In conclusion, the
learned Single Judge held that since
plaintiff respondent had taken prompt
action it clearly showed that he had
acted in good faith. Thus the High
Court made out a case for invoking the
proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section
21 of the Act in favour of the
plaintiff-respondent. Sequally, the
High Court found no difficulty in
allowing IA 785 of 1975 permitting
change of the provision whereunder IA
265 of 1975 was filed and in allowing
IA 265 of 1975 ordering the suit
against the heirs and legal
representatives of defendant 1 to be
dating back to 14.11.74, the date on
which the plaint was originally
presented.”

(underlining is
ours)

13. In the Case of Banwari Lal vs Balbir Singh, 2016

(1) SCC 607, defendant no. 1, (who was respondent no. 1

in the first appeal) had expired 2 years prior to the

decision in the first appeal, but no steps were taken

to bring his legal representatives on record. The

first appellate Court decided in favour of the

plaintiff. When the matter came up in second appeal,

the legal representatives of defendant no. 1 filed an

 21

application for condonation of delay and restoration.

This Court though observed that the application ought

to have been filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code

inasmuch as the death had occurred during the

subsistence of the matter before the Court and the

application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was not

maintainable, had proceeded to allow the application on

the ground that it would be unjust to non-suit the

applicant on the ground of technicalities. This Court

permitted the legal representatives of defendant No. 1

to convert the application into one filed under Order

22 Rule 4 of the Code.

In the cases relied upon by the respondents, viz.,

Jayalaxmi Janardhan Walawalkar (supra) and in the case

of Madhukar Ramachandra Keni (supra), the death had

occurred during the pendency of the matter and

consequently the suit stood abated. The case of Arora

Enterprises (supra) is also not applicable as it deals

with the finality of an abatement order. In that

context, the Courts have concluded that the only course

 22

open to the plaintiff/appellant in case if the death

occurs in a pending matter, is to file an application

under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code, and not under Order

1 Rule 10 of the Code or under Section 151 of the Code.

14. In the matter on hand, though the trial court had

rightly dismissed the application under Order 22 Rule 4

of the Code as not maintainable at an earlier point of

time, in our considered opinion, it needs to be

mentioned that the trial Court at that point of time

itself could have treated the said application filed

under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code as one filed under

Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, in order to do justice

between the parties. Merely because of the non-

mentioning of the correct provision as Order 1 Rule 10

of the Code at the initial stage by the advocate for

the plaintiff, the parties should not be made to

suffer. It is by now well settled that a mere wrong

mention of the provision in the application would not

prohibit a party to the litigation from getting

justice. Ultimately, the Courts are meant to do

 23

justice and not to decide the applications based on

technicalities. The provision under Order 1 Rule 10

CPC speaks about judicial discretion of the Court to

strike out or add parties at any stage of the suit. It

can strike out any party who is improperly joined, it

can add any one as a plaintiff or defendant if it finds

that such person is a necessary or proper party. The

Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code will of

course act according to reason and fair play and not

according to whims and caprice. The expression “to

settle all questions involved” used in Order 1 Rule 10

(2) of the Code is susceptive to a liberal and wide

interpretation, so as to adjudicate all the questions

pertaining to the subject matter thereof. The

Parliament in its wisdom while framing this rule must

be held to have thought that all material questions

common to the parties to the suit and to the third

parties should be tried once for all. The Court is

clothed with the power to secure the aforesaid result

with judicious discretion to add parties, including

 24

third parties. There cannot be any dispute that the

party impleaded must have a direct interest in the

subject matter of litigation. In a suit seeking

cancellation of sale deed, as mentioned supra, a person

who has purchased the property and whose rights are

likely to be affected pursuant to the judgment in the

suit is a necessary party, and he has to be added. If

such purchaser has expired, his legal representatives

are necessary parties. In the matter on hand, since the

purchaser of the suit property, i.e., defendant no.7

has expired prior to the filing of the suit, his legal

representatives ought to have been arrayed as parties

in the suit while presenting the plaint. As such

impleadment was not made at the time of filing of the

plaint in view of the fact that the plaintiff did not

know about the death of the purchaser, he cannot be

non-suited merely because of his ignorance of the said

fact. To do justice between the parties and as the

legal representatives of the purchaser of the suit

property are necessary parties, they have to be

 25

impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, inasmuch

as the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code

was not maintainable.

As mentioned supra, it is only if a defendant

dies during the pendency of the suit that the

provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code can be

invoked. Since one of the defendants i.e. defendant

No.7 has expired prior to the filing of the suit, there

is no legal impediment in impleading the legal

representatives of the deceased defendant No.7 under

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, for the simple reason that

the plaintiff in any case could have instituted a fresh

suit against these legal representatives on the date he

moved an application for making them parties, subject

of course to the law of limitation. Normally, if the

plaintiff had known about the death of one of the

defendants at the time of institution of the suit, he

would have filed a suit in the first instance against

his heirs or legal representatives. The difficulty

that the High Court experienced in granting the

 26

application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule

10 of the Code discloses, with great respect, a

hyper-technical approach which may result in the

miscarriage of justice. As the heirs of the deceased

defendant no.7 were the persons with vital interest in

the outcome of the suit, such applications have to be

approached keeping in mind that the Courts are meant to

do substantial justice between the parties and that

technical rules or procedures should not be given

precedence over doing substantial justice. Undoubtedly,

justice according to the law does not merely mean

technical justice but means that law is to be

administered to advance justice.

15. Having regard to the totality of the narration made

supra, there is no bar for filing the application under

Order 1 Rule 10, even when the application under Order

22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed as not maintainable

under the facts of the case. The legal heirs of the

deceased person in such a matter can be added in the

array of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code read

 27

with Section 151 of the Code subject to the plea of

limitation as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 6 of the

Code and Section 21 of the Limitation Act, to be

decided during the course of trial.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the

High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The

Trial Court is directed to implead the legal

representatives of deceased defendant no. 7 and bring

them on record, subject to the plea of limitation as

contemplated under Order 7 Rule 6 of the Code, as well

as under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to be

decided during the trial.

.…..…………………………………….J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
………………………………………….J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

NEW DELHI;
October 3, 2017.