JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 05.03.2019, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh vide which, an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10(4), Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of defendant No. 1 has been allowed post impleadment of one Smt. Veena Rani as a party-defendant. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the learned Court below while allowing said application is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Court has erred in not appreciating that the applicants before the learned Court below had not brought any material on record to demonstrate that despite due diligence, the amendment sought for, could not be incorporated earlier in the pleadings. He further submits that the amendment allowed by the learned Court below alters the entire nature of the suit and the amendment stands allowed by the learned Court below without appreciating the fact that the same was completely time barred. On these grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order being bad in law be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Court below which has been assailed by way of this petition. He submitted that after the filing of the suit by the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs in the civil suit, wherein they have challenged the Will, purportedly, executed by their mother in favour of defendant No. 1, in the written statement filed by said defendant, a preliminary objection has been taken that suit was bad for non-joinder of Smt. Veena Rani, as on the strength of GPA, which was executed by the mother of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No. 1, part of the suit land stood sold by defendant No. 1 to said lady.Thereafter, an application was filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs to implead Smt. Veena Rani, which was dismissed by the learned Court below. 4. 4. Said order was assailed before this Court by way of a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide judgment dated 07.04.2018, passed by in CMPMO No. 506 of 2017, titled Bimla Devi and other versus Ishwar Dass and others, the petition so filed was allowed by this Court and Smt. Veena Rani was ordered to be substituted as party defendant. Learned Trial Court was directed by this Court to pass appropriate orders once the plaintiff approaches it under the provisions of order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Thereafter an application was filed praying for amendment of the plaintiff, in which declaration was sought with regard to GPA and sale deed executed on the strength of said GPA, which rightly stands allowed. 6. Learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 thus submits that the order which was passed by the learned Court below was a just order as the amendment which now stands allowed in the plaint by the learned Court below could not have been earlier incorporated by the plaintiff as new facts came to their notice only after specific stand qua execution of GPA and sale of part of suit land was taken in the written statement. Accordingly, it is prayed that this petition being devoid of merit be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Court below while allowing the application for amendment of the plaint, has not dealt with the issue of limitation to the effect that the pleas which now stood incorporated by the amendment were time barred. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Court below as well as other documents appended with the petition. 9. Suffice it to say that the primary concern of the petitioner, as has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant, is that the learned Court below has not taken care of the fact that the pleas which stand incorporated by way of amendment of plaint are time barred. In my considered view, apprehension of the defendant in this regard is totally mis-conceived. In my considered view, apprehension of the defendant in this regard is totally mis-conceived. This I say so for the reason that the provisions of order 1, Rule 10(4) and Rule 10(5) and Section 21 of the Limitation Act, when read harmoniously, leave no room for doubt that as the suit with regard to the newly added defendant has to be construed to have been instituted as from the date when the newly added defendant stands served, it is the said date which is decisive as to whether the relief being claimed by plaintiffs qua the newly added defendant is time barred or not. 10. Incidentally herein newly added defendant has not assailed the order. Further, there is no express order passed by the learned Court below to the effect that the suit vis-a-vis newly added defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted from the earlier date, i.e. the date when newly added defendant was served in the suit. In this background, but natural, the suit against the newly added defendant is deemed to have been instituted from the date she was served in the suit, in terms of provisions of Order 1, Rules 10 (4 and 5) and Section 21 of the Limitation Act. In this view of the matter, as this Court finds no occasion to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the defendants, including the present petitioner, shall be at liberty to take objections with regard to newly added pleas being time barred, by filing amended written statement. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.