( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the order and decree dated 11-9-2002 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala in la. No. 103/2002 in O. S. No. 7/1997.

( 2 ) BY the impugned order, the court below allowed the I. A. filed by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 c. P. C. and thereby permitted them to come on record as plaintiffs 2 to 7 and also to carry out the consequential amendment.

( 3 ) FOR convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and the defendants.

( 4 ) THE brief facts are that the deceased plaintiff No. 1 filed the suit for recovery of money on the strength of a registered mortgage deed. The court below passed the preliminary decree on 2-3-2001. Subsequently, the plaintiff died. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the 1st plaintiff filed I. A. No. 102/2001 for passing of the final decree. After the death of the plaintiff, since his legal representatives were not brought on record formally, they again filed the present application i. e. , I. A. No. 103/2001 for their impleadment and consequential amendment. The court below by the impugned order allowed the said LA. Aggrieved by this order, the defendants in the suit filed this revision petition.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners-defendants contended that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for the impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, no particulars as regards the date of death were furnished. He further contended that the L. R. petition was not filed within 90 days of the death of the 1st plaintiff and hence the suit has to be abated and they cannot be permitted to come on record. He finally contended that in order to avoid a petition to set aside abatement and to condone the delay, the present LA. has been filed under Order 1 rule 10 C. P. C. and the same is not maintainable and in fact a petition under order 22 Rule 10 C. P. C. has to be filed. He stated that the Court below without giving any reasons, allowed the present LA. With these contentions, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

( 6 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs contended that the court below had rightly allowed the legal representatives to come on record. He submitted that an application under Order 1 rule 10 C. P. C. is maintainable. He also submitted that even otherwise, after passing of a preliminary decree a suit cannot be dismissed, except in appeal or in a revision. With these submissions, he sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

( 7 ) IN support of their respective contentions, both the counsel relied on some judgments and they will be referred in the course of the judgment.

( 8 ) IN view of the above contentions, the following points would fall for my consideration: (1) After passing of the preliminary decree, if the plaintiff dies, to enable the court to pass a final decree, whether the plaintiffs can be permitted to come on record either under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. or under Order 22 Rule 10 C. P. C. ? (2) Whether the limitation of 90 days prescribed under Article 120 of the limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the present situation?

( 9 ) ISSUES 1 and 2:- Now it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of C. P. C. for better appreciation.

( 10 ) ORDER 1. Rule 10 of C. P. C. deals with suit in the name of wrong plaintiff. Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 10 are relevant and they are extracted as under:- (1) Whether a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such