G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by some of the original defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23 2-1974 passed by the civil Judge, Chikkodi in RA No. 173/72 on his file, dismissing the appeal after dismissing IA. I for addition of original plaintiff No. 2 as respondent in the appeal. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and possession of the suit properties. According to them the plaintiffs and defendants 12 to 18 were the joint owners of the suit properties. The suit was decreed on 22-6 1965 ex parte and the contesting defendants went up in appeal before the learned Civil judge, Belgaum. After the Civil Court was established at chikodi, it was transferred to the Civil court, Chikodi as the appeal falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Chikodi and it was registered as RA No. 173/72 on the file cf the Civil Judge, chikodi. It was then that IA I was given to the Court for impleading the original second plaintiff as respondent in the appeal. As according to the applicants, his name was not added due to mistake and inadvertence, an application was given under Or. 41, R. 20 of CPC, stating that the second plaintiff is a person interested in the result of the appeal and therefore, tie should be added as a party. The application was resisted. It was contended that, the second plaintiff being a joint owner of the suit properties in whose favour, a decree for possession was passed, he should have been added as a party in the appeal in the first instance only, and that he cannot be described as a person merely interested in the result of the appeal. The decree in his favour had become final there being no appeal within the time prescribed. Therefore, the other side prayed that the application should be dismissed. ( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge, considering the arguments of the parties at great length, has held that the application would not lie under Or. The decree in his favour had become final there being no appeal within the time prescribed. Therefore, the other side prayed that the application should be dismissed. ( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge, considering the arguments of the parties at great length, has held that the application would not lie under Or. 41, R. 20 of CPC, as it is hopelessly beyond the period of limitation and as the second plaintiff could not be considered as 0 person merely interested in the result of tbe suit and in that view he dismissed IA I, and having dismissed IA I he dismissed the appeal also as the joint decree in favour of the second plaintiff has become final and as such the appeal is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is instituted before this Court by the appellants before the learned Civil Judge. ( 4 ) THE sole point therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is : whether IA. I given under Or. 41, R. 20 of CPC should have been allowed by the learned Civil Judge ? ( 5 ) OR. 41, R. 20 of CPC as it existed then reads : where it appears to the Court at the hearing that any person who was a party to the suit in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, but who has not been made a party to the appeal, la interested in the result of the appeal, the Court may adjourn the hearing to a future day to be fixed by the Court and direct that such person be made a respondent. Thus, it is clear that as a rule the application under Or. 41, R. 20 of CPC should be given within the time prescribed for filing the appeal, it is no doubt true that in the amended Civil Procedure Code, by the amending Act of 1976, sub clause (2) is added to Or. 41, R. 20 of CPC which reads ;"no respondent shall be added under this rule, after the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, allows that to be done, on such terms as to costs as it thinks fit". 41, R. 20 of CPC which reads ;"no respondent shall be added under this rule, after the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal, unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, allows that to be done, on such terms as to costs as it thinks fit". Thus, the enabling clause is added which was not there before amendment, in the cpc, It is true that there were some decisions earlier regarding the period of limitation. It was held in Girish Chauder v. Sasi Shekhareswar (1) that a person who was a party to the proceeding in the Court below might be added as a respondent, though (he time to appeal against him had expired. But, this could not be done if the misjoinder had rendered the appeal incompetent, as when an appeal was filed against only some of several joint decree- holders, Badarinarayan v. East India Railway (2 ). On a similar reasoning in Bhojraj krishnarao v. Darsu (3), it is held that a joint decree holder who has not been joined as a respondent within time is not a pers6n "interested in the result of the appeal" within the meaning of Or, 41, R. 20 of CPC (AIR 1927 PC 252 re! on ). It is also pointed out in the case that S. 151 of CPC could not be invoked when there was an express provision of law with regard to the point at issue. The Supreme court of India had also an occasion to consider the point in the case reported in ch. Suratsing v. Mohanlal (4 ). It has laid down that where a particular party who was party in the proceeding could be added as a respondent depended upon three factors : (i) the proposed party must be interested in the result of the appeal; (ii) the concerned party should take steps to bring the proposed party within time allowed by law ; and (iii) there must be bona fides in the making of the application. That being so, it is obvious that when the application is not made within time and when the party cannot merely be described as a person interested in the result of the appeal but as a person who is a necessary party to the appeal, the IA to add him as a respondent in the appeal given hopelessly beyond time cannot be allowed merely on the assertion that the lawyer committed a mistake in not adding him as a party. The mistake of the lawyer, if at all, should be such as is likely to be committed by a person of his experience after exercising due diligence. On going through the matter, it is seen that the plaint itself states that the plaintiffs and defendants 12 to 18 were joint owners. Decree was obtained by all the joint owners. It is further on record that they have even taken possession' of the suit lands. That being so, it is obvious, that all the joint owners should have been added as respondents to the appeal. Hence, the mistake committed by the lawyer, cannot be considered as one which Is likely to be committed even after exercising diligence. Moreover, as observed above, it is clear that plaintiff No. 2 is not added as a party in the appeal not merely as a person who is just interested in the result of the appeal but also as a person who has obtained a decree in his favour. A precious right had accrued to him by lapse of time, by not adding him as a party. Therefore, the Court should not exercise its discretion lightly so to defeat the valuable rights accrued to plaintiff No. 2. In the circumstances, the learned Civil Judge was right in holding that plaintiff No. 2 could not be added as respondent under IA I and in dismissing IA I and as a result the appeal. ( 6 ) IT is obvious that when the decree has become final with regard to one of the joint decree-holders being a joint owner, it cannot be otherwise with regard to the other joint owners; there cannot be Inconsistent decrees with regard to the same cause of action which is joint and indivisible. ( 6 ) IT is obvious that when the decree has become final with regard to one of the joint decree-holders being a joint owner, it cannot be otherwise with regard to the other joint owners; there cannot be Inconsistent decrees with regard to the same cause of action which is joint and indivisible. That being so, there is justificatioa in dismissing the appeal also as a necessary party was not added in the appeal, ( 7 ) IN the result, the present fall as devoid of merits and is. No costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .