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 m