Judgment : 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He has filed this appeal challenging the decree and judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge, Kottayam dismissing his suit for insurance amount under a policy towards the loss sustained by damages and destruction of his industrial unit in rain and flood. 2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be stated thus:- The case has a long checkered career with the suit instituted in 1991 claiming the insurance amount, initially, against the insurance company as the sole defendant. Plaintiff is the proprietor of a small scale industrial unit viz, Quick Lime Project at Thuruthy, Vazhappally Village, which, according to him, suffered damages due to heavy rain and storm on 10.4.1988. He had availed a loan for operating the unit from a bank which was later impleaded as additional second defendant. The bank as part of loan transaction over and above the securities furnished had taken a policy for the unit to cover the risk arising from fire, storm etc from the first defendant Insurance Company. Policy which ought to have been issued for his unit was 'A' policy but what was issued by mistake was 'C' policy. That mistake was deliberately withheld from the plaintiff was his case. In a heavy storm and rain on 10.4.1988 his factory shed collapsed causing heavy damages to the entire assets of his unit including machineries, raw materials and finished products and all records. His claim for insured amount reporting the incident the next day to the insurance company was not heeded to and, later, through his bank a complaint was forwarded to that company. Still, the claim under the policy was not honoured was the case initially presented in his plaint to get a decree for the insured amount with interest from the defendant Insurance Company. Claim was resisted by the insurance company contending that policy had been issued in favour of the bank as the mortgagee and the plaintiff the mortgagor, both of them together, on the request made by the bank, and what was insured was only the stock of raw materials, dried coconut husk and shell and finished goods stored in the building of the unit. Policy issued did not cover any machinery or building nor any risk from flood or storm was its case. Policy issued did not cover any machinery or building nor any risk from flood or storm was its case. Policy was taken by the bank and there was no mistake in taking nor issuing 'C' policy to the bank was its case. No relief in the suit can be entertained without the bank in the party array was its further case denying its liability. The plaintiff thereupon applied for impleading the bank which took the policy, as additional second defendant, and it was allowed. Other than seeking impleadment of the bank as additional second defendant no relief was canvassed against the bank at that stage. Suit after trial was dismissed, but, with some comments over the negligence of bank in taking 'C' policy instead of 'A' policy observing that since no relief was canvassed against the bank it cannot be fastened with any liability. Against the dismissal of suit plaintiff preferred an appeal before this court. In that appeal application for amendment of plaint was filed to incorporate allegations imputing negligence of bank in taking a wrong policy and for a decree against it also for the suit claim. Application for amendment of plaint was allowed and the appeal was disposed remitting the case for fresh disposal with directions to provide opportunity to the additional second defendant to file further pleadings in the case. After such remand suit was decreed ex parte against the second defendant. On its application ex parte decree was later set aside and suit restored to file. Additional second defendant disputing the suit claim contended that on the request of plaintiff his account and all papers connected with the loan had been transferred to another branch of the bank,namely Muhamma branch. It was also contended that a suit has been filed by the bank against plaintiff for realisation of the loan amount which was defaulted. Plaintiff thereupon applied and got impleaded the branch Manager of the bank, Muhamma Branch as additional third defendant in the suit. That defendant also filed a statement disputing the claim of plaintiff contending among others that the suit claim is barred by limitation. 3. On the pleadings of parties trial court raised six issues and first among them related to the maintainability of the suit. On the side of plaintiff, he was examined as PW1 and A1 to A16 were exhibited, to prove the suit claim. 3. On the pleadings of parties trial court raised six issues and first among them related to the maintainability of the suit. On the side of plaintiff, he was examined as PW1 and A1 to A16 were exhibited, to prove the suit claim. For defendants DW1 to 3 were examined and Ext.B1 to B9 were exhibited. Learned Sub Judge found against the maintainability of the suit holding that it was instituted beyond the period of limitation prescribed and thus barred by limitation. Appreciating the materials produced findings were entered on other issues, all of them together, that claim of plaintiff was not bonafide, that insurance policy was taken at the risk of plaintiff, and it was not the duty of the bank to take the policy, and that there was no negligence on the part of bank in taking the policy. Suit was dismissed holding that plaintiff is not entitled to realize any amount from defendants. Aggrieved by the decree plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 4. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff banking upon Insurance Tariff Code contended that a duty was cast upon the insurer, first defendant, to issue a proper policy over the unit of plaintiff. The Tariff Code is a piece of subordinate legislation and it can be taken judicial notice of even if not exhibited in evidence, is the submission of counsel. The Tariff Code stipulates coverage of the risk of small scale unit of plaintiff by issue of 'A' policy, but, what was issued was only a 'C' policy on account of negligence of the bank which had taken that policy, is the submission of the counsel to contend that both insurer and also bank are liable to compensate the damages caused by destruction of the unit of plaintiff in rain and storm as claimed in his suit. Copy of Insurance Tariff Code was produced before the trial court and exhibited but it has not been included in the appendix to the judgment, is the submission of counsel. A copy of the Tariff Code was also made available for my perusal by the counsel. Regulation 5 and Rate Code 321 in the Code are relied by the counsel to contend that insurance coverage for the small scale unit of plaintiff should have been under 'A' policy and not 'C' policy. A copy of the Tariff Code was also made available for my perusal by the counsel. Regulation 5 and Rate Code 321 in the Code are relied by the counsel to contend that insurance coverage for the small scale unit of plaintiff should have been under 'A' policy and not 'C' policy. Ext.A6 reply given by insurance company stating that 'C' policy was issued for the unit on the information given by bank was also pressed into service by counsel to contend that both bank and insurer were at fault for not issuing a correct policy and both of them are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused to his unit in heavy rain and storm . Ex parte decree passed earlier against the bank was set aside without sufficient cause is the challenge canvassed by learned counsel submitting that in the present appeal plaintiff has every right to question correctness of setting aside the ex parte decree though challenges raised thereto earlier by revision had been turned down by this court. 5. According to counsel the suit is governed by Article 44(b) of the Indian Limitation Act, for short the Act, which provides for a period of three years . Period for filing a suit under that article commences either from the date of occurrence causing the loss, or where the claim on policy is denied from the date of denial, submits the counsel. Correspondence with the insurance company continued after the occurrence and it was only on 26-12-1989 first defendant by Ext.A6 letter informed him that insurance policy issued was 'C' policy which did not cover damages caused by flood and storm and, thereupon, the suit was filed on 16- 7-1991,submits the counsel. Suit filed within three years from the date of Ext.A6 is within time prescribed by the Act,is the submission of counsel. Cause of action for the suit has to be interpreted and understood with reference to the bundle of facts alleged in the plaint is the submission of counsel relying on State of Rajasthan and others v. M/s.Swaika Properties and another (1985) 3 SCC 217 ), Hajee Ummer Koya v. Sri.Parthasarathi Rice & Oil Mills ( 1957 KLT 953 ) and Chekkutty v. State of Kerala ( 1963 KLT 70 ). Since second and third defendants are managers of two branches of the same bank impleadment of third defendant later cannot be a ground for holding that suit is barred by limitation is the further submission of counsel. Decree of dismissal passed in the suit is liable to be reversed and appeal has to be allowed granting the plaintiff a decree for the suit claim, submits the counsel. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, managers of two branches of the same bank, submitted that second defendant was impleaded on 29.5.1992 and third defendant on 16.7.2012 in the suit instituted on 16.8.1991. Suit was originally filed against the insurance company alone and later the second defendant was impleaded, but, seeking no relief against that defendant. Much later third defendant was impleaded imputing allegations of negligence against the bank in taking a wrong policy and claiming relief against the bank with the insurer. Claim set forth against additionally impleaded defendants after institution of suit is clearly barred by limitation is the submission of counsel relying on Ramalingam Chettiar v. P.K.Pattabiraman and another (2001) 4 SCC 96 ). On merits also plaintiff has no case to get any decree against the insurer or bank, is the submission of counsel stating that the damages caused to his unit, to claim the insurance amount, has not been proved by any material. So, in any view of the matter, dismissal of the suit has only to be upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed, is the submission of counsel. 7. Before examining the challenge against the decree of dismissal on various grounds canvassed by learned counsel for plaintiff relying on the Insurance Tariff Code and materials tendered in the case, question of limitation over the suit which was found against the plaintiff by the learned Sub Judge has to be considered. If the suit is found to be barred by limitation, then, no inquiry on the other challenges raised to assail the decree of dismissal is called for as it will be an exercise in futility. Learned Sub Judge has held that suit is barred by limitation holding that it is governed by article 72 of the Act, which prescribes a period of limitation of one year. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the suit is governed by article 44(b) of the Act which provides a period of three years. Learned Sub Judge has held that suit is barred by limitation holding that it is governed by article 72 of the Act, which prescribes a period of limitation of one year. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the suit is governed by article 44(b) of the Act which provides a period of three years. Suit instituted within three years from the denial of the claim on policy by insurer under Ext.A6 is within time and not by limitation is the case canvassed. Before examining which of the above two articles, or any of them, has applicability some fundamental aspects governing the two articles have to be taken note of. 8. Article 72 of the Act governs suit for compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment, prescribing period of one year commencing from the date of the act or omission taking place. That article would come into operation only in a case where the act complained of was done in good faith and under the honest belief that it was in pursuance of an enactment. Where a public official or public authority does an act injurious or possibly injurious to another under powers conferred by some Act of Legislature the suit against him has to be brought within the period of one year from the commission of the act or omission. That article will have no applicability where the act is done in an improper manner out of malice or carelessness by a public functionary. For the applicability of this article it must be shown that the suit is one for compensation for doing or omitting to do an act in terms of an 'enactment in force.' The article has no applicability to a case where the act or omission complained of is not alleged to be in pursuance of statutory authority. 9. Suit was instituted, initially, against the insurance company as the sole defendant with no whisper of allegation against the bank to claim compensation for issuing a wrong policy for the unit of the plaintiff. Insurance company was proceeded against as the sole defendant alleging that it committed a mistake in issuing 'C' policy instead of 'A' policy for the unit of the plaintiff. Insurance company was proceeded against as the sole defendant alleging that it committed a mistake in issuing 'C' policy instead of 'A' policy for the unit of the plaintiff. Now the argument canvassed by counsel for plaintiff relying on Insurance Tariff Code that insurance company was bound to issue 'A' policy as there is a statutory mandate to do so, if it is accepted, then, it goes without saying that suit on such a case falling under article 72 of the Act should have been filed within one year from the act or omission. That was not the case of plaintiff in the unamended plaint whereunder claim was confined against the insurance company setting forth a case that by mistake a wrong policy had been issued to him and, thereby, he was deprived of getting compensation for the loss over the insured property. In the nature of the allegations raised in the suit instituted against the sole defendant, the insurance company, it was not a suit governed under Article 72 of the Act. 10. Is the suit governed by article 44(b) of the Act, which is the case of learned counsel for plaintiff, has to be considered. Article 44(b) reads thus:- Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 44(a) xx xx xx xx xx Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run (b) On a policy of insurance when the sum insured is payable after proof of the loss has been given to or received by the insurers Three years The date of the occurrence causing the loss, or where theclaim on the policy is denied ,either partly or wholly, the dateof such denial. Suit contemplated under the above article is a suit by the insured against the insurance company. In such a suit insured cannot claim any relief against third party. Whatever be his case suit governed by the article is one over the rights of the assured against the insurer and it does not apply to a suit by the insured against a third party. Similarly, no suit against the insured or insurance company by a third party would come under the ambit of the article. Whatever be his case suit governed by the article is one over the rights of the assured against the insurer and it does not apply to a suit by the insured against a third party. Similarly, no suit against the insured or insurance company by a third party would come under the ambit of the article. So much so, the argument now advanced that suit of the plaintiff against insurance company and bank, which has been impleaded as additional defendant later, would fall under article 44(b) has no merit. Suit under that article is one where claim on the policy is denied by insurer. Where case of plaintiff is that a wrong policy had been issued by the insurance company on account of negligence of the bank and a decree is sought jointly against the bank and insurer, the suit is not one where claim on policy is denied by the insurer as covered under Article 44(b) of the Act. Where article 44(b) of the Act applies to a suit by the insured against the insurance company, that alone, and not against a third party with the insurer, it has no application to the present case where plaintiff has founded his claim on the negligence of bank in taking a wrong policy for his unit from the insurer. 11. Where no corresponding article for claiming damages in the general law has been provided under the Act, then, it will be a case governed by the residuary article 113 of the Act. So in the present case on the claim canvassed by plaintiff against the insurer and bank, it is seen, his suit is governed by the residuary article 113 of the Act. The question then emerges for consideration is when the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff. In the plaint he has stated that the cause of action arose from 10.4.1988 onwards. Though learned counsel for plaintiff argued at length how cause of action has to be construed with reference to the bundle of facts presented in the plaint relying on some judicial authorities as well I find no dilation over the question is called for as it would have only academic value in the given facts of the case. Though learned counsel for plaintiff argued at length how cause of action has to be construed with reference to the bundle of facts presented in the plaint relying on some judicial authorities as well I find no dilation over the question is called for as it would have only academic value in the given facts of the case. Additional second and third defendants, two branch managers of the bank, both of them, had been impleaded after the expiry of three year period from Ext.A6 reply given by insurer. Additional third defendant was impleaded only on 16.7.2012. There is no merit in the submission made by counsel for plaintiff that since both defendants are of the same bank the date of impleadment of additional third defendant is immaterial. Even in the case of additional second defendant his impleadment was after the period of three years from the date of accrual of the right to sue, if we go by Ext.A6 ignoring the 'cause of action' stated in the plaint as commencing from 10.4.88. So far as defendant additionally impleaded after institution of suit section 21 of the Act states that suit shall be deemed to have been instituted against him only when he was made a party. When that be so, claim of plaintiff against defendants 2 and 3 in any view of the matter is clearly barred by limitation. With respect to the claim against the insurance company, having regard to the allegations raised and also the cause of action stated as having arisen on 10.4.1988 suit filed was barred by limitation. 12. On merits also in view of the conclusion formed as above no discussion over the claim of the plaintiff on other grounds canvassed is warranted. Still, it is noted, that pending the present suit, the bank filed a suit for recovery of loan amount repayment of which was defaulted by plaintiff, and obtained a decree in its favour. Claim of bank was resisted by plaintiff on the case set forth in the present suit.Ext.B5 judgment would show that plaintiff resisted the claim of bank on the case canvassed in the present suit that negligence of bank in taking a wrong policy deprived him of getting the insured amount. The decree obtained by bank against plaintiff has now become final and conclusive. The decree obtained by bank against plaintiff has now become final and conclusive. Further more, as rightly contended by learned counsel for bank other than setting forth a case imputing issue of a wrong insurance policy for his unit, no material was produced by plaintiff to substantiate the claim for damages on the policy issued by insurer. Without proof on the damages sustained no claim thereof can be allowed by the court. Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed with the costs of respondents, with direction to treat second and third respondents, both of them together as one set.