Judgment :- 1. The order under challenge is one by which the court below has allowed the petition filed by the respondents under 0.1 R.10 C. P. C. 2. The case of the petitioner briefly stated is this: The suit instituted by the first respondent is not maintainable as the promissory note which is the basis for the suit, is not one executed in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent has also no case that he is a holder in due course. Under these circumstances there is no need to implead the second respondent as an additional plaintiff. The application under O.1 R.10 C. P. C. seeking impleadment of the second respondent as the additional plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 3. The case of the first respondent discernible from the petition for impleading is that the suit has been instituted in the name of a wrong person as the plaintiff and the suit happened to be instituted thus through a bonafide mistake. For the determination of the real issue, the junction of the second respondent is indispensable is the further case of the respondents. 4. The court below accepted the above case of the respondents and as a consequence thereof passed the impugned order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the provisions contained in 0.1 R.10 are not meant to salvage suits which were instituted by persons who had no right to institute such suits. In other words this provision is not intended to help persons who have no cause of action to institute the suit. 6. The above argument, though at first blush is attractive, is liable to be rejected in view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, discernible from the decision in Bal Niketan Nursery School v. Kesari Prasad (A.I.R.1987 SC 1970). A reference to the following observations of the Supreme Court is profitable: "....The scope and effect of 0.1, R.10 has been considered in numerous cases and there is a plethora of decisions laying down the ratio that if the court is satisfied that a bona fide mistake has occurred in the filing of the suit in the name of the wrong person then the court should set right matters in exercise of its powers under 0.1, R.10 and promote the cause of justice. The courts have gone so far as to hold that even if the suit had been instituted in the name of a person who had no competence to file the suit, the courts should setright matters by ordering the addition or substitution of the proper plaintiff for ensuring the due dispensation of justice. We may only refer to a few decisions in this behalf. In Laxmikumar Srinivas Das v. Krishnaram Baldev Bank Lashkar, AIR 1954 Madh Bha 156 it was held that the words "where a suit has been instituted in the name of wrong person as plaintiff" must be construed to include those suits which are instituted by persons who had no right to do so and that the fact that the person instituting the suit had no cause of action would not take away the court's jurisdiction to order substitution of another as plaintiff". 7. It therefore follows that even if the suit was instituted by a person who has no manner of right to do so, in that, he has no cause of action, would not take away the court's jurisdiction to order substitution of the right person as plaintiff provided the court after considering the evidence or materials on record was satisfied that the suit was instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff through a bonafide mistake and that the impleadment was necessary for the determination of the real issue in dispute. 8. The court below has found that the suit has been instituted in the name of a wrong person through a bonafide mistake and that it was necessary to determine the dispute to have the second respondent also impleaded as additional second plaintiff. These findings for the purpose of impleadment, considered in the light for the evidence the parties had produced, cannot be said to be perverse. That means these findings are unassailable. The order based on these findings accordingly is beyond challenge. The C. R. P. therefore is liable to be dismissed. 9. However under the peculiar circumstances of the case it has become necessary to issue the following directions: i The trial court shall dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any of the findings (pertaining to the question as to whether the suit has been instituted through a bonafide mistake), contained in the order under challenge, as expeditiously as possible. 9. However under the peculiar circumstances of the case it has become necessary to issue the following directions: i The trial court shall dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any of the findings (pertaining to the question as to whether the suit has been instituted through a bonafide mistake), contained in the order under challenge, as expeditiously as possible. ii The question as to whether the suit is barred by limitation shall be considered afresh (with reference to S.21 of the Limitation Act) without reference to any of the findings contained in the order under challenge. The C. R. P. is disposed of as above. No costs. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.