JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J.—The plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision against the order of the trial Court rejecting the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, for addition of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 1 as parties to the suit. 2. Admittedly, at the time of filing of the suit, Defendant No. 1 was already dead. When this aspect was discovered, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC to add the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 as parties to the suit. The said petition was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the suit against dead person being a nullity, the petition cannot be allowed. The trial Court observed : “...... The law is well settled that the suit filed against the dead person is a nullity.......” However, while considering this aspect, the trial Court has failed to notice several decisions including that of the Orissa High Court to the effect that where a suit is filed against several persons out of whom one or some were dead at the time of filing of the suit, the suit as against the other parties who were alive on the date of the suit is not a nullity. This view is clearly expressed in the decision reported in AIR 1964 Mysore 293 (C. Muttu v. Bharat Match Works, Sivakasi), wherein it was held that where a suit is filed against a dead person, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant an application under Order 1, Rule 10, or under Order 22, Rules 4 and 9, CPC. However, where there were more defendants than one and one of them was dead at the time of filing of the suit, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant can be brought on record subject to any question of limitation that may be raised by the legal representatives of such deceased person. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in the decision reported in 42 (1976) CLT 1283 (Cuttack Municipality v. Shyamsundar Behera), wherein while approving such principle, it was observed : “......... The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in the decision reported in 42 (1976) CLT 1283 (Cuttack Municipality v. Shyamsundar Behera), wherein while approving such principle, it was observed : “......... Their Lordships clearly laid down that no substi¬tution can be permitted in a case were there was a sole defendant, but where there are more defendants than one and one of them was dead when the suit was filed, the legal representa¬tives of the deceased defendant can be brought on record subject to any question of limitation that may be raised by the legal representatives of the deceased person who were brought on record as the suit had been validly presented in so far as the living defendants are concerned.” Similar view has been expressed by Kania, J. (as his Lordship then was) in the decision reported in AIR 1982 Bom. 589 (M/s. Nevandram Jevermal v. Devikabai Haridas Gandhi and others), where, after referring to several decisions, the view expressed in the decision reported in AIR 1964 Mysore 293 (supra) was fol¬lowed. 3. In the present case, admittedly there were other defend¬ants who were alive at the time of filing of the suit. As such there was no embargo on the part of the trial Court to implead the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1. However, such impletion must be taken to have taken place from the date of application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, and not earlier for the purpose of considering the question of limitation so far as the newly added parties are concerned. 4. In such view of the matter, the Civil Revision is allowed. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite parties, there will be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.