JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, the applicant impugnes the order dated 16.2.1993 of the Claims Tribunal at Kawardha whereby his application for joinder as a party to the claim case has been rejected on the ground of limitation. 2. It is not in dispute that the claim arises out of a motor accident which took place on 15.4.1988 prior to the coming into force of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into force on 1.7.1989. To the accident in question the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (now repealed) would apply. 3. The applicant claims to be the husband of the deceased, although his status as husband has been denied by the other claimants who have preferred the claim. Whether there was a valid marriage or valid divorce between the applicant and deceased is a question which is yet to be decided. According to the learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal, on the date the application by the applicant to be added as one of the claimants was filed it was barred by limitation as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of 1939 Act. It is also stated by the Claims Tribunal that the delay in preferring the claim has also not been satisfactorily explained. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the husband as one of the left out legal representatives should have been allowed to be joined as a party to the case as the Claims Tribunal overlooked the provisions of Section 110-A of the Act of 1939. The learned Counsel appearing for non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 opposes the prayer and submits that the Claims Tribunal rightly applied the bar of limitation to such an application. 5. This being a claim based on an accident prior to the coming into force the new Act of 1988, the provisions of 1939 Act would be applicable. The proviso to Section 110-A (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, reads as under: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. 6. 6. From the aforesaid provision it is clear that the claim petition filed by some of the legal representatives of the deceased is deemed to be a claim made on behalf of and for the benefit of all the legal representatives. The provision permits the legal representatives who have not so joined to be impleaded as respondents to the application. 7. In a case where the proviso is attracted the bar of limitation contained in Sub-section (3) cannot apply. It is not a case where one of the legal representatives is proposing to file a fresh claim. The proviso in Sub-section (1) lays down that a claim already filed would be deemed to be for and on behalf of all the legal representatives. The legal representative left out shall in such circumstances be allowed to be joined as respondent. 8. It is made clear that whether the present applicant fulfills the status of legal representative of the deceased would also be one of the issues to be decided in the claim case on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. In view of the clear provisions quoted above of the 1939 Act, (which are pari materia with Section 166 of 1988 Act), the Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the application in its entirety. If the applicant could not be allowed to be added as claimant he could have been allowed to be joined as respondent. The cases relied by the Claims Tribunal are distinguishable. 9. Consequently, this revision partly succeeds and is allowed. It is directed that the present applicant be allowed to be joined as respondent to the claim petition and permitted to file a written statement. The claimants shall also be allowed to amend their claim in the light of written statement filed by the applicant as respondent. The Claims Tribunal shall then frame necessary issues with regard to the status of the present applicant as being the legal representative and on his claim for compensation with other claimants. The order of stay passed by this Court on 4.8.1993 is vacated and the parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal at Kawardha on 16.5.1996, for taking necessary steps in the light of the directions made above. 10. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy be furnished within 3 days.