JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE point agitated in this revision concerns interpretation of Rule 20 of Order 41 Civil Procedure Code. The appellate Court having rejected prayer made thereunder for amending the memo of appeal by adding defendant, Banwari, as party respondent in the appeal, the unsuccessful appellant is before me with the grievance that his application has been rejected arbitrarily. ( 2. ) SHRI B. G. Apte, learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that he has no objection to the matter being remitted to the Court below for reconsideration of the application. That is welcomed and the gesture is indeed commendable. But the question still is, the Court below must be apprised of the scope and extent of the relevant provision so that in rendering the decision afresh it does not misdirect itself and necessitate a further revision of the decision. Shri J. P. Sharma, who appears for the petitioner-appellant has made a wholesome and short submission that the sole ground on which the application was rejected was the question of limitation, which was decided against him. It is his forceful submission that the Court below proceeded to apply sub-rule (2) without directing its attention to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 of order 41 Civil Procedure Code and in doing so it committed a jurisdictional error. I have no hesitation to accept this submission for the simple reason that on the sole ground that the application having been filed after expiry of period of limitation for appeal, the application was rejected. ( 3. ) SHRI J. P. Sharma, has drawn my attention to the averments made in the application in question wherein cogent grounds were stated for belated filing of the application as also for the default, which the counsel who filed the application owned. The application in question has been produced before me and is read out to me and is placed on record. I wonder how the trial Court could over-look the averments which vocally suggest that the defendants name in the memo of appeal came to be deleted due to inadvertence of the counsel, for his owned default. There is no discussion either of the reason for the belated application or of the ground on which the application was made under Rule 20, of Order 41 Civil Procedure Code for adding defendant-Banwari. as party respondent in the appeal. There is no discussion either of the reason for the belated application or of the ground on which the application was made under Rule 20, of Order 41 Civil Procedure Code for adding defendant-Banwari. as party respondent in the appeal. It is true that the power exercisable under sub-rule (1)of Rule 20 is discretionary but the discretion has to be used judicially and all facts and circumstances on which the power is invoked should enter the consideration of the court in rendering the decision thereon. ( 4. ) MY attention is drawn to the celebrated dictum of the Apex Court in Rafiqs case ( AIR 1981 SC 1400 ) observing that ". . . . . the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watch-dog of the advocate. . . . " Indeed, in case of illiterate appellants, and in the instant case Shri Sharma submits, the petitioner was one such, it is courts duty to see that litigant does not suffer for any default on the part of his counsel. Because, the context of the present adversary legal system, in vogue in our country requires that after the litigant has selected his counsel to look after his interest and for his inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour the litigant shall not suffer. In Goswami Krishna Murarilal Sharma ( (1981) 4 S. C. C. 574) their Lordships have held that there is no legal requirement for the appellant to appear personally at the hearing of the appeal and if that is the case there is no duty also, in my opinion on the appellant to ensure that the appeal was properly filed or properly prosecuted in which the counsel was duly briefed and the duty in connection therewith devolved oh the counsel. This aspect of the law having been totally overlooked by the Court below, the impugned order is not sustainable. ( 5. ) FE,w more words need be said on the scope of sub-rule (2) which, evidently was misconstrued by the Court below. This aspect of the law having been totally overlooked by the Court below, the impugned order is not sustainable. ( 5. ) FE,w more words need be said on the scope of sub-rule (2) which, evidently was misconstrued by the Court below. The purport of the provision evidently is to circumscribe the powers conferred under sub-rule (1) and not to pose the question of limitation as a precondition for exercise of the power. The question of limitation shall be only one of the elements that will enter into lie consideration of the Court in dealing with the application. Shri Apte has drawn my attention to Rule 3-A of Order 41 Civil procedure Code to submit that the principles thereof should also apply to the application made under Rule 20 but I do not find his submission acceptable for the obvious reason that the two provisions deal with two stages of the appeal proceedings. The application contemplated under Rule 3-A is one which concerns presentation of appeal while specific provisions are implied in Rule 20 to deal with the addition of a defendant as a party respondent during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, in my opinion, the conditions prescribed in Rule 3-A have no bearing on the matter dealt with in Rule 20. Indeed, sub-rule (2) itself, makes it clear that the formalities prescribed in rule 3-A are not to be observed and it is left to Courts discretion to allow an application made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 even when the period of limitation for preferring appeal against the proposed respondent has expired. I have no doubt, therefore, that in dealing with the application under Rule 20 of Order 41 Civil Procedure Code the first duty of the Court is to consider whether good grounds are made out; in other words, whether it is made to appear to the Court that the proposed respondents would be "interested in the result of the appeal" which expression, in my opinion, carries no other meaning except posing the question where relief can be granted against him in appeal the question of limitation comes later and for the purpose of determining whether the application was made bonafide; hot before that and not as a pre-condition. ( 6. ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. ( 6. ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to reconsider the application and render a fresh decision in accordance with law in terms of observations herein made. Steps shall also be taken for expeditious disposal of the appeal. No costs. Petition allowed.