ORDER 1. This is a petition for revision against the order dated 13.10.93 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5/90 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Katni. 2. One Newandram was allowed to occupy suit plot No. 632, Tikuri Camp., Katni, admeasuring 39' x 90'. However, there was disturbance in possession of Newandram over a portion of suit plot by the non-applicant No. 2/ defendant, a suit for permanent injunction and declaration was brought by the present applicant and present non-applicant No.3 who are wife and son of late Newandram, in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Katni. They also sought relief of temporary injunction. 3. The Trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction, hence appeal No. 5/90 was preferred. Earlier that appeal was dismissed on the ground of having been filed without a certified copy of the impugned order; but after an application under section 114 and 151 CPC was moved by the present applicant and non-applicant No.3 jointly, the said appeal was restored for hearing. In the said appeal No. 5/90 in the cause title the name of only non-applicant No.3 as appellant was mentioned, and the name of present applicant/co-plaintiff was not mentioned either as appellant or as respondent. According to the applicant, the mistake was a typing error, therefore, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved (which in fact ought to have been under Order 41 Rule 3 CPC) alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed. The Appellate Court, however rejected the said application by the impugned order mainly on the ground of delay, and the present applicant was not permitted to join as party in the said appeal. 4. It has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel for applicant that it was only on account of typing mistake that the name of present applicant Sugnibai could not be mentioned in the memo of appeal and there was in fact no intention to have left her name out or not to join her as party. He has in this connection mentioned about the application under section 114 and 151 CPC filed before the Appellate Court, which is Annexure P-3, filed alongwith memo of revision, in which Sugnibai has also been shown as one of the applicant. The application (Annexure P-3) was allowed by the Appellate Court. He has in this connection mentioned about the application under section 114 and 151 CPC filed before the Appellate Court, which is Annexure P-3, filed alongwith memo of revision, in which Sugnibai has also been shown as one of the applicant. The application (Annexure P-3) was allowed by the Appellate Court. He has also stated that on the discovery of the mistake of non-joinder of applicant Sugnibai as appellant, an application for amendment was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC alongwith application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, which are Annexure P-4 and P-5 to memo of Revision respectively. The mistake being bona fide the applicant Sugnibai should have •been permitted to join as party in the appeal, as per provisions of Order 41 Rule 3 CPC. 5. During arguments the learned counsel for applicant has urged that under Order 41 Rule 20 CPC, 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, is interested in the result of the appeal, the Court may adjourn the hearing to a future date to be fixed by the Court and direct that such person be made a respondent in the appeal. He has also urged that though his application for being joined as a party in the appeal was filed late and under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which though in terms is not applicable, but that should not frustrate the ends of justice and she should have been permitted to join as respondent because the mistake had occurred inadvertently, and as soon as it was discovered the Appellate Court was moved accordingly by way of the above application. He has sought to support his contention by citing the case reported in Ram Narayan v. Tulsi Ram (1987 MPLJ p. 407). 6. As against this the learned counsel for non-applicant has supported the impugned order and has urged that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff/applicant in this revision. 7. As mentioned above the Appellate Court had first dismissed the appeal as being not accompanied by the copy of the impugned order. 6. As against this the learned counsel for non-applicant has supported the impugned order and has urged that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff/applicant in this revision. 7. As mentioned above the Appellate Court had first dismissed the appeal as being not accompanied by the copy of the impugned order. In that connection the present applicant and non-applicant No.3 had filed a joint application under section 114 and 151 CPC for setting aside the said order. The copy of that application dt. 28.8.89 is Annexure P-3, of the memo of revision. Admittedly the said application was allowed. From that application (Annexure P-3) it is abundantly clear that the applicant Sugni considered herself to be appellant in the case. No body had raised any objection in that regard earlier. This supports the contention of the learned counsel for applicant Sugnibai that her name was inadvertently left out in the memo of appeal. Though, she had filed an application for correcting the above mistake late and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, but the same could have been considered under Order 41 Rule 20 CPC as inserted by the amendment Act of 1976. 8. In the above reference following observations in Ram Narayan's case (supra) may be usefully quoted: "The support of the provision evidently is to circumscribe the powers conferred under sub-rule (1) and not to pose the question of limitation as precondition for exercise of the power. The question of limitation shall be only one of the elements that will enter into the 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. 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 Court's 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." 9. In view of the above it is clear that if the party to the suit is interested in the result of the appeal, ought to have been added as a party. As pointed out earlier it is urged on behalf of the applicant that in fact the name of the applicant was left out only due to inadvertent typing mistake and her name may be allowed to be added as a party. The above argument is supported by the application filed earlier in the appeal (Annexure P-3). The above contention of the learned counsel for applicant that the name of the applicant was inadvertently omitted in the memo of appeal, therefore, appears to be well founded. It is clear that she is interested in the result of the appeal and wishes to be joined as a party, therefore in the interest of justice her name deserves to be added as a party because Courts should not resort to the mere technicalities, but should advert to imparting substantial justice. 10. It is clear that she is interested in the result of the appeal and wishes to be joined as a party, therefore in the interest of justice her name deserves to be added as a party because Courts should not resort to the mere technicalities, but should advert to imparting substantial justice. 10. Therefore, for the said reasons the revision is allowed and the present applicant is directed to be joined as respondent in the Civil Appeal No. 5/90 pending before 1st Additional District Judge, Katni, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 200.00 to the defendant/non-applicant No.2. The necessary corrections in the memo of appeal shall be made and thereafter, the appeal shall be heard and decided in accordance with law by the Appelalte Court. No costs.