Honble NAOLEKAR, J.–Since a common question of law is involved in all these special appeals, they are being decided be this common order.

(2). Appellant No. 2 (in all appeals) Star Wire (India) Limited filed claim petition as on 29.1.1993 for short delivery before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinaf- ter referred to as `the Act) against the Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Bombay.

(3). Appellant No. 1 (in all appeals) Steel Authority of India Limited has filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for joining it as a party-plaintiff to the proceedings on the ground that an agreement was entered into between the appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 by which the appellant No. 1 appointed appellant No. 2 as its handling agent. Clause 22 of the agreement authorises the contractor to obtain railway shortage certificate and to lodge claims with the Railways within the prescribed time and for the said purpose the Company shall, whenever necessary, authorise the contractor. The Claim will be pursuaded by the contractor and the amount realised will be to the credit. Due to the aforesaid clause 22 of the agreement the applicant No.1 was of the view that the appellant No. 2 is legally empowered and authorised to give notice and to file claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal. However, during the course of hearing their raised some doubts about the maintainability of the claims petition by the appellant No.2 and it was decided to move an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC for addition of its name in the original claim filed by the appellant No.2.

(4). The claim tribunal held that the application filed by the appellant No. 1 on 4.8.1993 is apparently barred by limitation as the date of booking was 13.12.1989 by virtue of Section 21 (1) of the Limitation Act. The claims Tribunal has also held that proviso to Section 21 (1) is not applicable because the application for joining of party is for substitution and not for addition of party, but passed on order of substitution of the appellant No. 1 as party to the proceedings. It was, however, directed that to meet out the objections of limitation it may file an application for condonation of delay under Section 17 (2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ``The Act, 1987) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant No. 1 was directed to file amended cause title with consequent amendments in the claim application. Aggrieved by the said order, the Union of India filed appeal under Section 23 of the Act, 1987.

(5). The learned Single Judge was of the view that the application under Order 1, Rule 10 as filed by the appellant No. 1 on August 4, 1993 was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1987 which is three years from the date on which the goods were entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by Railways and, therefore, the application was barred by limitation and allowed the appeal and dismissed the application of the appellant No. 1. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present appeals have been preferred.

(6). Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC provides that where the suit is being instituted in the name of a wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court at any stage of the suit, is 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 disputes so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the court thinks fit.

(7). Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that where a new plaintiff or defendant is added or substituted, the suit as regards him be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made the party. So, when there is addition or substi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document