Short Note : 1. Bacchumal and Smt. Rekhabai made an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC praying that their names be substituted as co-plaintiffs in place of the Firm Bacchumal Sadromal, which was the original plaintiff. Bacchumal and Smt. Rekhabai were the only partners of the firm. The trial Court allowed the application. 2. This Court has perused the order of the learned trial Judge which he passed on 3.11.1977 on the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. The learned trial Judge has said that the plaintiffs have not conceded that there was any illegality in the partnership firm. However, they made an application for substituting the names of the partners so that there may be no difficulty in prosecuting the suit. He observed that the plaintiffs still have the right to challenge the finding of the trial Court in the first and the second appellate Courts. Once the trial Court has found that the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC was bona-fide, it is a question of fact. Nothing has been shown as to why the application should be held as mala-fide. Merely because an adverse order is passed and the plaintiff makes an application to correct the error, it is not the same thing as mala-fide or want of bona-fides. It is significant that the Firm Bacchumal Sadromal is a registered partnership firm. That being so, if the suit was initially brought in the name of the partnership firm, whether it is right or wrong is a different matter, but it cannot be said that there is an error of jurisdiction within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the trial Court has said that the application under Order 1, Rule 10 is bona-fide. That conclusion having been reached, the proviso to section 21 of the Limitation Act is at once attracted. This proviso has been added to section 21, while enacting the present Limitation Act of 1963. This proviso did not find place in section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which corresponds to section 21 of the present Limitation Act. Gowarjabai vs. Ganpatsa Vithusa, AIR 1940 Nag. 274 and Ramparshad vs. Vijaykumar, AIR 1967 SC 278 , distinguished. Revision dismissed.