Writ petition challenging an order allowing impleadment of an intervenor as co-plaintiff was dismissed. The High Court held that objection on limitation need not bar impleadment, as petitioners can raise the defense in the suit.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 565 OF 2013
SHRI. GUNU NARAYAN VASTA AND 5 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SMT. USHA ANANT LAD @ USHA C. PAI AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents
... Respondents
Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioners.
Coram:R. M. SAVANT, J.
Date:26th September, 2013
P.C.
The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 02/05/2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pernem, by which order, the application filed by the intervenor to implead herself as a co-plaintiff in the suit, came to be allowed. The principal objection of the petitioners to the impleadment is raised on the touchstone of Section 21 of the Limitation Act. It is the case of the petitioners that the cause of action for the suit in question, has been shown as in the year 2009 and, therefore, the relief qua the intervenor, who is now joined as the plaintiff no.2 would be beyond limitation. It is not necessary to interdict with the impugned order. It would be open for the petitioners to raise the said defence in the suit in question. If such a defence is raised, needless to say that the Trial Court would consider the same on its own merit and in accordance with law.
2
dismissed.
R. M. SAVANT, J.
SMA
Shri. Gunu Narayan Vasta and 5 Ors.
Smt. Usha Anant Lad @ Usha C. Pai and 2 Ors.
R. M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
