H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the order dated 29.4.2001 passed by this Court, of which the petitioners seek review.
(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. was filed by the defendant respondents after expiry of period of three years from filing of the suit and as such the application was barred by limitation. He contended that the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. is governed by the provision of Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides limitation of three years. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, Order 1 C.P.C. provides that where 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 wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the suit 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 a plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. The expression 'at any stage of the suit' cannot be limited or curtailed for a period of three years from the date of filing of the suit but it provides that during the pendency of the suit at any stage means stage prior to the culmination of the proceeding and thus, in my considered opinion, Section 137 of the Limitation Act, has no application in the instant case. Moreso, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order impugned. No case for review is made out. Revision Petition dismissed.;