RAJENDRA PRASAD OIL MILLS, KANPUR AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. CHUNNI DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT The following question has been referred for being answered :-

(2.) MURLI Dhar Verma, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents to this appeal, instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for recovery of money as damages and interest. The sole defendant to the suit, as originally filed, was described as follow :-

(3.) AT the time the appeal was heard by the Division Bench which referred the question which is before us today, it was stated by learned counsel for the parties that they had been unable to find any reported decision recorded by any Court in India or any Court in England on the parallel provision contained in Order 48A Rule 11 of the Supreme Court Rules directly bearing on the question whether or not the case of a limited company was excluded from, or included in, the provisions contained in Rule 10 of Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the hearing before this Full Bench, however, quite a few cases have been brought to our notice which support the view taken by the learned Civil Judge, as also the decision of a learned single judge of this court holding that a limited company would be included within the meaning of the expression person used in Rule 10 of Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure.