A party previously involved in a suit does not initiate a new cause of action when added after dismissal; procedural limitations do not apply.

1. By this application the defendants seeks dismissal of the petition on the ground that Rishi Kumar being necessary party to the suit was added as a party after expiry of limitation and the suit has become incompetent and not maintainable. The application has arisen from the following facts. Shri Kunj Behari and Rishi Kumar filed this petition under S.20 of the Arbitration Act praying that the agreement dated 3-2-1979 and 6-2-1979 be directed to be filed in this C ourt and further proceeding in the matter of appointment of arbitrator may be taken. The suit was filed by both the petitioners through one counsel Mr. Sabharwal on 12-2-1985. Petitioner 2 Rishi Kumar filed an application I.A. 939 / 85 through another counsel, Mr. Mohinder Goel and prayed that in view of the compromise arrived at between petitioner 2 and the respondent, the ourt may grant him necessary permission for sale and transfer of certain flats by the respondent in favour of the petitioner 2 and may be allowed to withdraw his name from the array of the petitioners and the petition be continued in the name of other petitioner Kunj Behari petitioner 1 only the application was directed to be listed on 21-4-1985. In view of the fact that Mr. Mohinder Goel, Advocate, had filed vakalatnama for petitioner 2, whereas previously both the petitioners were represented by one counsel Shri Sabharwal, Shri Sabharwal was discharged in respect of his vakalatnama as far as petitioner 2 was concerned. I.A. 939/85 was adjourned from time to time. Thereafter, the suit was listed on 1st Oct., 1985 when none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the suit was dismissed for default. An application, I.A. 5701/85, was filed on behalf of petitioner 1 under O. 9, R.9, .P. . on 4th October, 1985 for setting aside the dismissal and restoration of the suit. The application was allowed on 30th Oct., 1986. The operative portion of the order reads as under. -
"Application is, therefore, allowed and the suit is restored to its original number, as far respondent 1 is concerned. There is no application on behalf of respondent 2. The question whether the suit is maintainable only by plaintiff No. 1 will be considered on the next date of hearing. To be listed on 21-1-1987."
The suit was listed on 22nd Jan., 1987 to decide the question whether the suit was maintainable only by petitioner 1. On that date, Mr. Goel appeared for petitioner 2 and requested that the matter might be adjourned so as to enable petitioner 2 to file an application for restoration of the suit qua him. Request was acceded to and the matter was adjourned. In the meanwhile, petitioner 1 filed an application being I.A. 656/87 under O.1, R.10, .P. . praying that petitioner 1 may be permitted to transpose petitioner 2 as respondent 7 or any other order which may be just and proper be passed. Petitioner 2 also moved an application being I.A. 663/87 for restoration of the suit. The application was contested on behalf of the respondent and by order dt. 22-4-1987 the application was dismissed. Application of petitioner 1 under O.1, R.10, .P. . was disposed of by order dt 30-11-1987. The prayer of petitioner 1 for transposing petitioner 2 as respondent was disallowed on the ground that the person who is to be transposed as plaintiff or defendant should be a party to the suit. Since petitioner 2 ceased to be a party to the suit, as the suit qua him was dismissed. He could not be transposed as a respondent. However, it was held that petitioner 2 was a party to the arbitration agreement and he was a necessary party for these proceedings. His presence was necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of all the questions involved in the suit. The application was allowed to the exte