( 1 ) IN this revision petition, the petitioner who was defendant No. 8, ha? challenged the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1976 of the Add1. Civil judge, Bangalore District Bangalore, in R. A. No. 128 of 1976 affirming the judgment and decree dated 3-6-1976 of the Munsiff, Doddaballaur in O. S. No. 183 of 1971. ( 2 ) ON 5-8-1971, the respondent plaintiff instituted O- S. No- 183 of 1971 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 138-87 alleged to be due by, defendant No. 1 8 and seven others. On a memo filed by the plaintiff, the learned Munsiff by his order Lt. 10-1-1974 deleted defendant No. 8. But, on a subsequent application made by the plain-tiff, the learned Munsiff by his order dated 19-6^1975, again impleaded defendant no- 8 as a party defendant. After such impleading, suit summons were served on defendant No. 8 and thereafter he appeared before Court and filed his written statement contesting the suit claim on various grounds. On a consideration of the evidence placed before him, the learned Munsiff decreed the plaintiff's suit. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned munsiff, defendant No. 8 filed an appeal in R. A. No. 128 of 1976 before the learned Civil Judge, in which he prominently urged that as by the time he was impleaded as a defendant, the suit claim against him was barred by time and, therefore, 'the decree made against him was liable to be set aside. On an examination of the said and other contentions that were urged before him, the learned Civil Judge b,y his judgment dated 30-11-1976 has dismissed the said appeal. ( 3 ) SRI N. V. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contentends that when once the plaintiff has suo motu given up defendant No. 8, it was not open to the learned Munsiff to again implead him as a party defendant and decree the plaintiff's suit as by thajt time, the said claim was barred by time against him and in decreeing the plain-tiff's suit, the learned Munsiff has acted illegally and with material irregularity affecting his jurisdiction. ( 4 ) AS noticed earlier, defendant No. 8 who was originally impleaded as a party was deleted at the request of the plaintiff himself. ( 4 ) AS noticed earlier, defendant No. 8 who was originally impleaded as a party was deleted at the request of the plaintiff himself. When the plaintiff had deleted defendant No. 8, undoubtedly it was not open to the Court below to make any decree against him, as by the time defendant No. 8 was again impleaded, the suit claim against him had been barred by time. If the plaintiff had taken the risk rto delete defendant No. 8 and implead him after the e (xpiry of the period of limitation, the period of limitation that had run out for instituting the said suit or another suit cannot be saved under the provisions of the Limitation act, ( 5 ) IN the course of his judgment, the learned Civil Judge has negatived the aforesaid plea of defendant No- 8 on the ground that the proviso to S. 21 (1} of the Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) saves the suit claim against defendant No. 8. In, the first place, the plaintiff had not moved the Court to exercise the power, if any, conferred on it by the proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act. In order to claim: the benefit of the proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act, a party to a suit must make out a case to justify the exercise of the power by the Court under the said provision. In the absence of any application made by the plaintiff, the question of (the. Court exercising the power does not arise. Apart from this infirmity, I am also of the opinion that the proviso to S. 21 (1) of the act which applies to cases of initial omission, has no application to a case where a party impleads his opponent, but later with open eyes gives him up. In my opinion, the reliance placed by the learned Civil Judge on the proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act, is clearly illegal. ( 6 ) FROM the foregoing, it is clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant No. 8 was clearly barred by time and was, (therefore, liable to be dismissed. In my opinion, the reliance placed by the learned Civil Judge on the proviso to S. 21 (1) of the Act, is clearly illegal. ( 6 ) FROM the foregoing, it is clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant No. 8 was clearly barred by time and was, (therefore, liable to be dismissed. As the suit against defendant No- 8 is liable to be dismissed as barred by time, the question of examining the tenability of the claim made by him or the tenability of the other defences urged by defendant No. 8 does not arise. ( 7 ) IN the light of my above, discussion, i allow this revision petition. , set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below as against defendant no. 8 and dismiss the plaintiff's suit against defendant No. 8. ( 8 ) CIVIL revision petition allowed. ( 9 ) AS the respondent and his learned counsel are absent, I direct the parties to bear their own costs, --- *** --- .