THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4137 OF 2009. DATED:15-03-2010. Between: T.Padmavathi … Petitioner-Defendant and M/s Sri Vijaya Laxmi Traders, Khammam, Rep. by its Managing partner, A.Subhash Chandra Bose …Respondent-Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4137 OF 2009. ORDER: This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 15-07-2009, in I.A.No.1514 of 2008 in O.S.No.51 of 2003, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the proposed parties in the array of defendants as defendants 2 to 5, was allowed. 2. The above application was filed to implead the defendants on the ground that the defendant filed affidavit in the chief examination stating that she is the Managing Partner of Sri Raja Poultry Form and therefore, defendants 2 to 5 have to be impleaded as proposed partners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 2nd defendant is not a party to the suit, that it is not the case of the petitioner herein that the goods have been supplied to Sri Raja Poultry Form, that the last date of payment made even according to the plaintiff by the defendant is on 21-01-2000 and therefore, impleading proposed parties is hopelessly barred by limitation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the trial Court rightly allowed the application, that application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 can be ordered for effective disposal of the suit, that when there is a bona fide mistake which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff at a later stage, the application filed for impleading the proposed parties can be allowed and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. He relied on a decision reported in GUMMIDI RAMULU AND OTHERS V GADEY SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS [1]. 5. There cannot be any dispute that for effective adjudication of issues involved, the parties can be added at any point of time under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Initially the suit was filed in her individual capacity stating that she had business transaction with the plaintiff firm. When the defendant filed affidavit in the chief examination stating that she is the Managing Partner of Sri Raja Poultry Form, the present application was filed. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the goods have been supplied to Sri Raja Poultry Form. Therefore, question of adding Sri Raja Poultry Form and its partners does not arise in view of the fact that there is no cause of action at the first instance and in the second instance, it is hopelessly barred by limitation on their own showing. No doubt, the limitation aspect can be decided when it is a mixed question of fact and law. However, it is a pure question of law. On their own showing, the last date of transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is 21-01-2000. In view of the fact that it is a suit for recovery of money for the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, the suit has to be filed within three years from the date of last transaction. If the last transaction has to be taken into consideration, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation in the year 2003 itself. To circumvent the same, the present application was filed. 6. The contention of the plaintiff is that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application can be allowed, but it relates back to the filing of the suit and the same cannot be accepted in the absence of any pleading and cause of action between the parties. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is nothing but exceeding its jurisdiction. Hence, the order under challenge needs interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 15-07-2009, in I.A.No.1514 of 2008 in O.S.No.51 of 2003, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:15-03-2010 Hsd [1] 1994 (2) ALT 42