The court has the power to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the court disapproves of a technical approach that does not advance the cause of justice.

N.C.Jain, J.

1. This Revision Petition has been directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the application of the petitioners for bringing on record two respondents who were parties in the trial Court but who were not impleaded as parties before the first appellate court.

2. The brief facts worth noticing, in order to appreciate the precise question, are that the petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court impleading Lekh Raj Saini, respondent No. 1 before this Court, as the only respondent. At a later stage, it was detected that the necessary parties who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this revision petition were not arrayed as parties in the first appeal and, therefore, an application was filed for impleading them on 23rd October, 1989. The first appellate court vide its order dated 23rd October, 1989 itself allowed the application subject to question of limitation by passing the following order.-

"He says that defendants Nos. 4 and 5 could not be joined as respondents due to over-sight while drafting memo of appeal. The learned counsel submits that the case is at the initial stage and permission may be given to join them as respondents. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has caused appearance and he says that appeal will be time barred as against defendants Nos. 4 and 5 if they are joined now as respondents. I allow the application subject to question of limitation. Fresh memo of appeal may be placed on record by 31.10.1989."

After the passing of the above-mentioned order, the petitioners filed an application for condoning the delay which was contested, giving rise to the framing of the following issues :-

1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing appeal ? OPA

2 Relief.

3. The first appellate court while dismissing the application was of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked after the appeal has been filed in a court. In other words, the application for impleading respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been dismissed on the ground that application under Section 5 for condonation of delay was not maintainable.

4. In the revision petition, the counsel for the parties have been heard. After hearing the counsel for the parties this Court is of the firm view that in such like matters where any such party who is a party in the trial Court has not been impleaded in the appeal can surely be impleaded by a court under the provisions of Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives general power to a court to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit and necessary amendments can be made for the purpose of determining the real question. The power to make all necessary amendments can be exercised by a court at time. The words at any time would surely not bring in picture the question of limitation and once the limitation does not come in the way of a court, the necessity to consider the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not arise. A Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Mohan Prasad Singh Deo v. Ganesh Prasad Bhagat, A. I. R. 1952 Orissa 168, allowed an application to amend the cause title of memorandum of appeal by impleading a person who was a party in the original proceedings but was not impleaded as a party. The facts in Mohan Prasad Singh Deos case (supra) were that one of the decree-holders was not impleaded in appeal against the order of the executing court in the memorandum of appeal. After a long time an application was filed by the judgment debtor to implead the person who was left out. The application under Section 153 C. P. C. was allowed and cause title of the memorandum of appeal was allowed to be amended.

5. Leaving aside the case law, this Court is disinclined to non suit a party on the basis that an application for impleading certain parties in the appeal has been riled after the limitation. Technical approa