Judgment : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This revision is challenging the order dated 24th January, 2012 passed on Exh.87 in Special Civil Suit No.583 of 1997 rejecting the plea of defendant nos.1 to 4 that the plaint should be rejected for being barred by law as provided in Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was originally filed in the year 1997 by Smt. Manjudevi alone. In the plaint, she stated that she and her husband Vinodkumar had agreed to purchase certain immovable property situated at Nagpur from defendant nos.1 to 4 and an agreement was scribed in 1996, in which both Manjudevi and Vinodkumar were parties. Certain amount as earnest was also given. Subsequently, they learnt that defendant nos. 1 to 4 have agreed to sell the said property to defendant nos. 5 to 8 and therefore, the cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance arose. But, surprisingly, though the right to sue on these set of facts arose in favour of Manjudevi and Vinodkumar both, the suit was filed only by Manjudevi. When the suit was filed in this fashion, it was bad in view of the provisions of Order I, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which says that all persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where any right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternatively. In view of this and in view of the avernments made in the plaint, both Manjudevi and her husband Vinodkumar ought to have been joined as plaintiffs in this suit because the right to relief arising from the transaction existed in both. When the suit was filed in 1997, this lapse in the plaint was completely ignored and the summons were issued. Rather belatedly, this objection was raised in the Written Statement and thereafter, in 2005, Manjudevi moved an application for amendment in the plaint. She wanted to join her husband i.e. plaintiff no.2. After a lot of litigation, the application was allowed. But, the High Court, while allowing the application, specifically mentioned that Vinodkumar joined the litigation from the date of order which was in the 2005. She wanted to join her husband i.e. plaintiff no.2. After a lot of litigation, the application was allowed. But, the High Court, while allowing the application, specifically mentioned that Vinodkumar joined the litigation from the date of order which was in the 2005. In other words, it is clearly indicated that inclusion of Vinodkumar as a plaintiff in the litigation would be subject to law of limitation. It is, thus, clear that, on one hand the plaint filed by Manjudevi in 1996 deserved to be rejected being barred by Order I, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on the other hand, the plaint, as amended in the year 2005 for including Vinodkumar as plaintiff no.2, stood barred by limitation because the plaint clearly mentioned that the cause of action for the suit arose in 1996. 3. As per the provisions of the Limitation Act, the suit of this nature ought to have been filed within three years from the date when the cause of action arose. In view of this, even if the plaint is read as it stood today for the purpose of deciding the application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is required to be separated in the manner in which I have separated it above. In other words, two plaintiffs in this suit have different cases and if examined independently, they appear to be barred by law. Even otherwise, taken together, it would appear to be barred by both Order I, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act. Though this application is filed belatedly, an error committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court before issuance of summons ought to be corrected now. Therefore, the order impugned dt.24.1.2012 passed in Special Civil Suit No.583 of 1997 by the Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur is set aside. The plaint is rejected. The instant Civil Revision Application is accordingly allowed.