JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This revision is directed against an order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut dated April 4, 1985 through which the revision filed against the order dated June 27, 1984 passed by Additional Collector (Civil Supplies) Meerut was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that an application was by the revisionist under Section 198(4) for the cancellation of the Patta of the opposite party. This application was rejected mainly on two grounds firstly that it was time barred and secondly that the L.M.C. had not been impleaded. A revision filed against that order was also rejected hence his revision. 3. Hence the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist stressed that on account of the latest Amendment of sub-section (6) of Section 198 the limitation for filing the application has been extended upto November 10, 1987, hence the application could not be dismissed on this ground. As regards the impleadment of the L.M.C. it was contended that the trial court could not have rejected the application outright on this ground thy instead should have given an opportunity to the applicant to made L.M.C. a party and of course of if inspite of that order the applicant has not complied with. The application could have been rejected on this ground, but it was not so and the trial court rejected the application without giving an opportunity to that effect. 5. I find force in both the contentions made as above by the learned counsel for the revisionist. By virtue of S. 11 Uttar pradesh Land Laws Amendment Act, 1986 the limitation in such cases has been raised upto November 10, 1987. In the instant case the application had been moved on March 15, 1983 which was, therefore, within limitation in view of the Amendment referred to above. The application could not, therefore, be rejected on the ground of limitation. 6. In the instant case the application had been moved on March 15, 1983 which was, therefore, within limitation in view of the Amendment referred to above. The application could not, therefore, be rejected on the ground of limitation. 6. As the regards the question of impleadment of that L.M.C. the record does not indicate that the trial court has even given any direction to the applicant to implead L.M.C. or to make amendment in the original application, under order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. the court is empowered to order for the addition of any party to any proceeding or suit, hence it was duty of the trial court to have first ordered the revisionist to impead to L.M.C. and only then it could dismiss the application if its order had not been complied with. The trial court did not take such step, hence its order is rejecting the application cannot be called to be valid and it did not exercise its jurisdiction properly. The learned Additional Commissioner also failed to examine the aforesaid legal question and dismissed the revision without giving proper thought to them. The orders of both the courts below are, therefore, labile to be set aside and the case deserves to be remanded back to the trial court to decided it afresh after affording an opportunity to the revisionist to implead L.M.C. 7. In view of the above discussion this revision is allowed. The orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court to decide it afresh in the light of the observations made.