Honble NAOLEKAR, J.–Since a common question of law is involved in all these special appeals, they are being decided be this common order. (2). Appellant No. 2 (in all appeals) Star Wire (India) Limited filed claim petition as on 29.1.1993 for short delivery before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinaf- ter referred to as `the Act) against the Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Bombay. (3). Appellant No. 1 (in all appeals) Steel Authority of India Limited has filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for joining it as a party-plaintiff to the proceedings on the ground that an agreement was entered into between the appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 by which the appellant No. 1 appointed appellant No. 2 as its handling agent. Clause 22 of the agreement authorises the contractor to obtain railway shortage certificate and to lodge claims with the Railways within the prescribed time and for the said purpose the Company shall, whenever necessary, authorise the contractor. The Claim will be pursuaded by the contractor and the amount realised will be to the credit. Due to the aforesaid clause 22 of the agreement the applicant No.1 was of the view that the appellant No. 2 is legally empowered and authorised to give notice and to file claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal. However, during the course of hearing their raised some doubts about the maintainability of the claims petition by the appellant No.2 and it was decided to move an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC for addition of its name in the original claim filed by the appellant No.2. (4). The claim tribunal held that the application filed by the appellant No. 1 on 4.8.1993 is apparently barred by limitation as the date of booking was 13.12.1989 by virtue of Section 21 (1) of the Limitation Act. The claims Tribunal has also held that proviso to Section 21 (1) is not applicable because the application for joining of party is for substitution and not for addition of party, but passed on order of substitution of the appellant No. 1 as party to the proceedings. The claims Tribunal has also held that proviso to Section 21 (1) is not applicable because the application for joining of party is for substitution and not for addition of party, but passed on order of substitution of the appellant No. 1 as party to the proceedings. It was, however, directed that to meet out the objections of limitation it may file an application for condonation of delay under Section 17 (2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ``The Act, 1987) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant No. 1 was directed to file amended cause title with consequent amendments in the claim application. Aggrieved by the said order, the Union of India filed appeal under Section 23 of the Act, 1987. (5). The learned Single Judge was of the view that the application under Order 1, Rule 10 as filed by the appellant No. 1 on August 4, 1993 was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1987 which is three years from the date on which the goods were entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by Railways and, therefore, the application was barred by limitation and allowed the appeal and dismissed the application of the appellant No. 1. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present appeals have been preferred. (6). Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC provides that where the suit is being instituted in the name of a wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court at any stage of the suit, is satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in disputes so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the court thinks fit. (7). Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that where a new plaintiff or defendant is added or substituted, the suit as regards him be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made the party. (7). Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that where a new plaintiff or defendant is added or substituted, the suit as regards him be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made the party. So, when there is addition or substitution of the plaintiff on a later date the suit shall be deemed to have been filed on the date when the permission is granted by the court for addition or substitution of the new plaintiff. Proviso to sub- Section (1) of Section 21 of the Limitation Act appear to permit correction of the errors which have been commit- ted due to mistake made in goodfaith but only when the court permits correction of such mistake. In that event its effect is not to begun from the date on which the application for the purpose was made or from the date of permission but from the date of the suit deeming it to have been correctly instituted on the earlier date on the date of making the application. Proviso to Section 21 is applicable when there is an addition of a party because the phraseology used in the proviso to Section 21 indicates that where the Court is satisfied that omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to mistake made in goodfaith. (8). The plaintiff can be added or substituted as party to the proceedings on the application if on the date of addition, the claim made is within the period of limitation prescribed under the statute. Whenever a new plaintiff was substituted or added or the plaintiff was sought to be substituted or added on record after the period of limitation prescribed for suit has expired the application for the purpose should be dismissed. Section 17 of the Act, 1987 has provided a limitation of three years for the claims claiming compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterio- ration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by Railways and thus when the application was moved by the appellant No. 1 it was apparently barred by limitation and the Tribunal was bound to dismiss the application of the appellant No. 1. But sub-section (2) of Section 17 gives jurisdiction to the Tribunal, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i) of Section 17, to entertain an application for claim even after the period prescribed under the section expired, if the applicant satisfies the Claims Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 gives power to the Tribunal to condone delay in the given circumstances. If the Tribunal exercises the powers under sub-section (2) of Sec- tion 17 and condones delay then the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC cannot be said to be hit by the impediment of claim being barred by limitation and can be allowed by the Tribunal. But that situation will arrive at only after the decision by the Tribunal that the case is made out by the applicant whereby the delay in filing the application can be condoned. (9). In our considered opinion the claims tribunal has committed an error in allowing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC and thereafter directing the appellant No.1 to file an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. Whereas the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC filed by the appellant No. 1 on the ground that the claim would have been barred by limitation on the date the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC was filed, ignoring the provision of sub- section (2) of Section 17 of the Act that Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing claim petition beyond the period of limitation. The proper course which should have been adopted by the Tribunal was to permit the applicant appellant No. 1 to file an application under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, 1987 and if it arrived at the conclusion that the case is made out for condonation of delay then to take up the matter of addition or substitution of the party under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC subsequently or simultaneously. (10). In view of the above discussion, we set aside the orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. (10). In view of the above discussion, we set aside the orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration of the applications of the appellant No.1 and the applications filed under Section 17 (2) of the Act, 1987 and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. (11). If the addition of the party is permitted, the Railway Claims Tribunal may take into consideration the proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as it has been contended by the counsel for the appellants that the application is also for the addition of the party and not only for substitution.