- (1.) THIS is a revision against a decision of the Court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara, dated the 17th of February, 1951.
(2.) ONE Anop Chand filed a suit against Ajit Singh and 13 other persons as 'punches' of the 'oswal' community on an allegation that a certain house was in the lawful possession of the plaintiff but the defendants as 'punches' of the 'oswal' community had wrongfully dispossessed him on the 23rd of July, 1949. The suit was instituted for possession of the property under section 9 of the Special Relief Act. After the institution of the suit, it appears that the plaintiff wanted to take advantage of the provisions of O. 1, R. 8 of the Civil Procedure Code and a notice was issued in the 'nav-jeewan' newspaper of the issue of 20th December, 1949, intimating the institution of the suit against the 'punches' of the 'oswal' community of Bhilwara in their representative capacity and inviting any person interested in defending the suit to become party if he so liked. Fourteen persons who were defendants Nos. 15 to 28 applied on 2nd of July, 1950, for being made parties to the suit and were so made. The Civil Judge, Bhilwara, after trial found that the plainiff was in possession of the property and had been wrongfully dispossessed as alleged by him on the 23rd of July, 1949. He accordingly decreed the suit. The decree being non-appealable, 24 of the defendants have come up in revision while four of the defendants were made respondents. Several grounds have been urged in the memorandum of revision but the only point of law involved was on the point of limitation. It was urged that so far as defendants Nos. 15 to 28 were concerned, the suit was barred by limitation as on the date when they were made defendants, a period of more than six months had elapsed since the date of alleged dispossession. When a suit is filed in the manner provided under O. 1 R. 8 of the Code, the suit is deemed to be instituted when it was filed or if the permission referred to in the Rule is to be taken, when such permission is granted. The fact that other persons may apply to be made parties to the suit whether as plaintiffs or defendants as the case may be, would not affect the limitation which is to be calculated as on institution of the suit when it is filed or when permission is granted. It was argued that the suit was not framed according to the provisions of O. 1 R. 8 in the present case, but on hearing the plaint read by learned counsel from his brief, it is apparent that the relief claimed was against 'punches Oswal an' although it was defendants Nos. 1 to 14 who were mentioned as such 'punches' when the suit was filed. The issue of the notice under O. 1 R. 8 on the 20th of December, 1949, must have been preceded by an application to that effect and when the Court allowed the application the permission was necessarily granted. On that date, the suit was well within 6 months of the alleged dispossession. In the circumstances, the plea of limitation does not arise in this case and this revision is dismissed in limine. .;