BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ?cpc?) by the plaintiff for adding Spring Switzerland as a defendant in the present suit. ( 2 ) THIS suit has a chequered history in the sense that initially the plaintiff had instituted the suit, inter alia, for injunction. It transpires that the Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 application filed by the plaintiff was rejected by this Court and thereafter the plaintiff modified the suit to its present form being a suit for recovery of Rs. 50 lacs as damages for wrongful termination of the agency agreement. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the letter of appointment which was issued to the plaintiff on 31. 10. 1997 was undoubtedly issued by the present defendant in favour of the plaintiff appointing the plaintiff as an agent. However, it was signed on behalf of Spring Switzerland which is the proposed party to be added as a defendant in the present suit. He submits that it is through inadvertence that Spring Switzerland was not added as a defendant at the initial stages. Since Spring Switzerland is a party to the letter of appointment, therefore, it is both a proper and necessary party inasmuch as an effective decree cannot be passed in its absence. Therefore, he submits that a strong case is made out for adding the said Spring Switzerland as a defendant. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing both for the present and proposed defendant Spring Switzerland submits that the suit as initially filed by the plaintiff was directed against the existing defendant representing that the defendant was a subsidiary of Spring Switzerland. He submits that the plaintiff consciously left out Spring Switzerland from the array of parties and such an act could be easily construed as one of abandoning any claim against spring Switzerland. He further pointed out that the letter of appointment i. e. , the letter of 31. 10. 1997 was not signed by anybody from Spring Switzerland although the letter purports to have been signed by one Mr. Leonardo Talpo, managing Director of M/s Kuhn - Rikon Asia Pte Ltd. (the existing defendant) on behalf of Spring Switzerland. He further pointed out that the letter of appointment i. e. , the letter of 31. 10. 1997 was not signed by anybody from Spring Switzerland although the letter purports to have been signed by one Mr. Leonardo Talpo, managing Director of M/s Kuhn - Rikon Asia Pte Ltd. (the existing defendant) on behalf of Spring Switzerland. He also submitted that by virtue of Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even if a defendant is added the suit against him shall be deemed to have been instituted when he is so made a party. He further submitted that even according to the averments made in the plaint, the cause of action, if at all, against Spring Switzerland arose lastly on 26. 11. 1997. The present application for impleading Spring Switzerland was made in 2002 and even if an order passed today is deemed to relate back to the date of the application it would be still beyond the period of three years and, therefore, would be barred by limitation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Spring Switzerland, whichever way the matter is looked at the said Spring Switzerland ought not to be added as a defendant. ( 5 ) I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and am of the view that insofar as the letter of appointment is concerned, the same has been signed only by the existing defendant although it has been so signed for Spring Switzerland. It is, however, a matter which has to be ascertained during trial as to whether the said Mr Leonardo Talpo, Managing director of the existing defendant was authorized to sign the same for and on behalf of Spring Switzerland by Spring Switzerland. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the defendant to this extent that the question as regards privity of contract between the plaintiff and Spring Switzerland is a debatable one. However, the same can only be ascertained after evidence is led in the matter during trial. Insofar as the contention with regard to limitation is concerned, it is abundantly clear that Spring Switzerland was not added as a party in the fist instance and, therefore, this suit as against Spring switzerland would be deemed to be instituted when it is made a party. Insofar as the contention with regard to limitation is concerned, it is abundantly clear that Spring Switzerland was not added as a party in the fist instance and, therefore, this suit as against Spring switzerland would be deemed to be instituted when it is made a party. Therefore, if Spring Switzerland is made a party today, it will be deemed as if the suit against him was instituted today. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the plaintiff sought the invocation of the proviso to section 21 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that if the Court is satisfied that a new defendant who was left out earlier was so left out due to a mistake made in good faith, it may direct that the suit as regards such defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date. Insofar as this contention is concerned taking a prima facie view, I am not satisfied that the plaintiff failed to add Spring Switzerland as a defendant due to a mistake in good faith. It was conscious of the relationship between Spring switzerland and the present defendant as well as the entire transactions arising from the letter of appointment dated 31. 10. 1997. Therefore, even if the said spring Switzerland is added as a party, the suit against it would be deemed to have been instituted as on the date on which it is so added as a party. That, however, takes us to the question of limitation as to whether the relief claim against Spring Switzerland would be barred by limitation or not. That, of course, is a matter which has to be considered separately. Insofar as the present application is concerned since prima facie the letter of appointment was issued for and on behalf of Spring Switzerland by the present defendant, I think, it would be just and proper that the said Spring Switzerland is added as a defendant and I accordingly, direct that Spring Switzerland be added as a defendant No. 2. However, it is open to the defendant No. 2 to seek striking of its name from the array of parties on the ground that the reliefs that may be claimed against it under the present suit would be barred by limitation. However, it is open to the defendant No. 2 to seek striking of its name from the array of parties on the ground that the reliefs that may be claimed against it under the present suit would be barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the freshly added defendant No. 2 states that upon the filing of the amended plaint by the plaintiff he would take all these objections along with other legal objections which may be available to him. ( 6 ) THE other prayer that is made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is for the change in the name of the defendant from M/s Kuhn - Rikon Asia Pte ltd. to Spring Metal - ware Pte Ltd. This is not objected to by the learned counsel for the defendants. Accordingly, this prayer is allowed. ( 7 ) IN view of the forgoing, the application is disposed of with the direction that Spring Switzerland be added as defendant No. 2 and the name of defendant No. 1 be changed from M/s Kuhn - Rikon Asia Pte Ltd. to Spring Metalware Pte Ltd. "1. The amended plaint be filed within three weeks. The written statement (s) be filed within eight weeks thereafter and the replication be filed within three weeks thereafter. 2. List for admission/denial before the Joint Registrar on 24. 08. 2006. " .