$-2 & 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(OS) 2/2011 JSL LTD Appellant Through: Mr.Abhimanyu Bhandari and Ms.Aakansha Munjhal, Advocates % ARIBA INC & ORS Through: RFA(OS) 3/2011 JSL LTD Through: versus Respondents Mr.Mukul Talwar, Advocate Appellant Mr.Abhimanyu Bhandari and Ms.Aal<ansha Munjhal, Advocates versus ARIBA INC & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Mukul Talwar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEPNANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG ORDER 21.11.2011 1. Conceding that the averments in the plaints fall short of attracting the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1995) 1 SCC 478 New Horizons Ltd. & Anr. 1/5. UP! & Ors. as also (2005) 5 SCC 465 TECHNiP SA l/s. SIWS Holding (P) Ltd. & Ors. learned counsel for the appellant suggests that the appellant be permitted to withdraw the two RFA (OS) Nos.2/2011 &3/2011 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified appeals with liberty granted to file an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint and expand the pleadings qua respondent No.2, innpleaded as defendant No.2 in both suits. 2. Learned counsel states that if as a result of the amendnnents sought to be incorporated, the appellant can expand the scope of the pleadings in the suit attracting the law declared by the Supreme Court in the two decisions noted above, it may be clarified that in said eventuality the appellant would be entitled to seek fresh impleadment of 'ARIBA INC.', p impleaded as defendant No.2 in CS(OS) No.650/2009 and CS(OS) No.660/2009. 3. Granting liberty to the appellant to withdraw the two appeals, it is clarified that the appellant would be permitted to seek amendment of the plaint(s) and if the averments would attract the law declared in the decision in New Horizon's case (supra) and TECHNIPs case (supra), it would be open to the appellant to seek fresh impleadment of 'ARIBA INC.' as a party defendant in the two suits. 4. Learned counsel for the second respondent Sh.Mukul Talwar urges that it may be recorded that if the amendment is allowed and as a result 'ARIBA INC.' is re-impleaded as a defendant No.2, it would be treated that for purposes of limitation, suit would be deemed to be instituted against said party on the date the application for amendment is filed. 5. We leave said aspect to be considered by the learned Single Judge, who would be guided by Section 21 of the RFA (OS) Nos.2/2011 &3/2011 Page 2 of 3 Limitation Act 1963. 6. The appeai(s) are disposed of as not pressed; noting as above. 7. No costs. CIVI No.453/2011 in RFA (OS) No.2/2011 CM Nos.457/2011 & 459/2011 in RFA (OS) No.3/2011 Disposed of as infructuous. NOVEMBER 21. 2011 mm RFA (OS) Nos.2/2011 &3/2011 -r— 9 PRADEEP NAND JOG, J. Page 3 of 3