JUDGMENT
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.
1. This is plaintiff’s revision against the trial Court’s order dated January 12, 1984 rejecting the plaintiff’s application for addition of the party and for making consequential amendment in the plaint as a result of addition of the party.
2. Admittedly this prayer was made by the plaintiff to overcome the objection of non-joinder of the party taken by the defendants. This being so, there was no occasion to refuse addition of the party and the consequential amendment in the plaint. Even otherwise, before dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of a party the Court has to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead the necessary parties. This being so, the prayer made by the plaintiff as a result of the defendants’ objection should have been readily granted.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the bar of limitation to addition of the party would be attracted and this would be sufficient to justify the trial Court’s order. He placed reliance on Ram Prasad Dagaduram v. Vijaykumar Motilal Hirakhanwala and Ors. . That was a decision under the Limitation Act of 1908 and the change made in the corresponding provision in the Limitation Act of 1963 has been clearly noticed there in. In para 19 of the decision and it has been stated categorically that the rigour of the old law has been mitigated by the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which enables the Court to direct that the suit as regards newly added party shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date.
4. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court dated January 12, 1984 is set aside and the plaintiff’s application for addition of a party and consequential amendment in the plaint is allowed. No costs.