S.L.TALATI, J. - (1.)The petitioner-original defendant No. 2 challenges the order and decree passed by the Ahmedabad Small Causes Court No. 9 in Summary Suit No. 1280 of 1979 decided on 14-1-1983 as confirmed by the Bench of the Small Causes Court Ahmedabad in Application No. 24 of 1983 decided on 20th February 1984
(2.)It appears that original plaintiff-respondent herein had filed a summary suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1 900 and odd against defendant No. 1 as the air-conditioner was repaired. All correspondence etc. continued between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. Ultimately when leave to defend application was filed the plaintiff chose to add defendant No. 2 as a party in the year 1981 as it revealed that the air-conditioner belonged to defendant No. 2. The Small Causes Court it appears passed a decree against both the defendants while the Bench of the Small Causes Court partly allowed the application and set aside the decree passed against defendant No. 1 and passed a decree against defendant No. 2 only for a sum of Rs. 1875 That decision is now challenged by filing this revision application.
(3.)It is submitted that in view of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code the liability of defendant No. 2 could only begin when the summons of the suit was served on him and under these circumstances the suit so far as defendant No. 2 was concerned was barred by law of limitation. Emphasis is laid on sub-section (5) of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code which runs as under:
"(5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act 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".