*3 Before CAVANAUGH, HOFFMAN, OLSZEWSKI and JJ. HOFFMAN, Judge:

These appeals are from the lower court’s October (1) 1984 order refusing and dismissing the motion of defend ants, Donald A. Cerene and (Cerene Lawrence Becker and Becker), for leave to an additional defendant pro nunc tunc; refusing and dismissing the motion of defend ants, Esther Pools, Williams Swimming c/o P & M Distribu (Esther Williams), tors (Alu Aluminum Shapes, Inc. minum Shapes), for to join leave an additional defendant tunc.1 For herein, reasons stated we affirm. 27, 1982,

On June plaintiff (Kovale- Richard P. Kovalesky sky) fell into a swimming on pool premises jointly owned by defendants, Becker, and, Cerene and as a result of injuries fall, suffered in the became quadraplegic. Consequently, on July in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Kovalesky filed a complaint in trespass and assump- against Cerene, Becker, sit Williams, Esther and Aluminum Shapes, alleging negligence and breach of warranties. On *4 24, 1983, August Cerene and Becker filed preliminary objec- tions to the complaint in the nature of a motion for transfer of venue. September 13, 1983, On Esther Williams and Aluminum Shapes also filed preliminary objections in the nature of a motion for transfer 23, of venue. On November 1983, Cerene and Becker filed a praecipe for join writ to denying petition 1. An order pro a for nunc tunc of an addi- party tional appealable. is a final order Banking and Commercial 344, 346, Corp. Culp, 1154, Ct. 443 A.2d (1982). It (Laughlin) as an additional defendant.2 Laughlin Robert praecipe that this for writ was never served undisputed is 1983, 29, Philadelphia upon Laughlin. On November Pleas, White, per Judge of Common considera- Court defendants, of all ordered preliminary tion to the Schuylkill County the matter transferred Court order, Pleas. Pursuant to this the records were Common 7, 1984. Schuylkill County February transferred to on 21, 1984, in the of Common February Schuylkill On Court Pleas, filed their Shapes Esther Williams and Aluminum matter to The new plaintiffs complaint. answer and new an against Laughlin matter included a cross-claim as addi- 27, and Becker filed February tional defendant. On Cerene (1) matter raised Esther Williams and reply by a to the new (2) answer, matter and cross- Shapes; Aluminum an new Shapes) and Aluminum (against claim Esther Williams (3) against Laughlin and plaintiffs complaint; complaint 1984, 7, Esther defendant. On March as an additional to Cerene Shapes and Aluminum filed an answer Williams Then, Laughlin March and Becker’s cross-claim. on in nature of a motion to preliminary objections filed (1) praecipe join for writ strike the November Becker, him filed and by as an additional defendant Cerene (2) 1984 cross-claim filed Esther Wil- February Shapes, February liams and Aluminum filed by him as an additional defendant complaint joining strike, Laughlin In the motion to Cerene and Becker. filed viola- untimely that the had been alleged 2253. tion of Pa.R.Civ.P. on March Esther Williams

Subsequently, Laughlin Aluminum filed a motion for leave to Shapes April tunc. On pro as an additional for leave to and Becker also filed a motion Cerene tunc. as an additional defendant nunc Laughlin and, accordingly Laughlin present at the scene of the accident was “roughhousing” engaged with appellants, in boisterous conduct and plaintiff pool. in the *5 order, a the July Pursuant to June filed lower court, Dolbin, per Judge Laughlin’s preliminary sustained appeal in the a motion No nature of to strike. from order. taken this was court, Lavelle, per Judge the lower

On October dismissing opinion refusing an and order both entered leave an motions for additional defendant tunc. Esther Williams and Aluminum Subsequently, 24, 1984; filed their on October Cerene and Shapes appeal filed their on October 26.3 On October appeal Becker complained filed a statement of matters Cerene and Becker 1925(b), appeal pursuant on the Pa.R.A.P. which on November 1984. On November Laughlin answered 1925(b) filed their Shapes Esther Williams and Aluminum statement. Procedure Pennsylvania

Rule 2252 of the Rules of Civil that: provides

(a) In defendant or additional de- any any action the party, as an additional may, joining fendant as the or a to the action any person party whether not to him on the cause may be alone liable or liable over who jointly the or or upon by plaintiff of action declared him, may or be liable to severally liable thereon with who he may cause action which joining party any on of the party arising out transac- against joined have or occurrences or occurrence or series transactions tion cause of action is based. plaintiffs which the upon (b) joined party If to be is not a person sought course may file as of joining party the action If is complaint. by for a or a praecipe writ complaint shall file his within joining party writ of the from twenty days required The in the manner and form complaint, writ. action, in the shall set pleading plaintiff initial of the Shapes by appeal filed Esther Williams and Aluminum was The Philadelphia Superior Court at No. 1984. The in the docketed was at No. 2868 Philadel- appeal filed Cerene and Becker docketed phia 1984. liability facts relied to establish the forth the *6 the relief demanded. party and joined of an limitation for joinder Rule 2253 sets forth the time defendant, as follows: additional an defend- for a writ to additional praecipe

Neither a complaint by if the is commenced joinder ant nor or an original shall filed the defendant complaint, by be (60) the days after sixty defendant later than additional pleading the defendant of the initial upon original service thereof such any or amendment unless plaintiff the cause shown. is allowed the court filing added). (emphasis Pa.R.Civ.P. Appeal of Cerene and Becker

I. Here, appellants, record that Cerene the reveals as an Becker, join Laughlin their for writ to filed after ser- four months approximately additional them in of Rule complaint upon of the violation vice contend, however, that cause existed for just Appellants that they late because believed joinder Phila- the venue of the objections challenging preliminary In period. running sixty-day tolled the of the delphia court contention, cite v. Greater support they of this Graham (1970), District, 260 A.2d Latrobe School Co., Inc., 16 and DiCarlo v. Vincent A. Nese Construction 1980). Graham, our In (Allegheny D. & C.3d 573 Co. from sixty days defendant had Supreme Court held that the to join were overruled preliminary objections the date its defendants. It reasoned that: additional any of the cover the situation explicitly Rule 2253 does not defend- original when the of additional defendants If complaint. filed to the preliminary objections ant has arise, sustained, no how- problem are will objections an amend- ever, will be dismissed or for either action day period a sixty filed after which complaint ed will be here, overruled, are as objections When the begins. given that the defendant be policy require reason and Preliminary additional defendants. days sixty and until validity pleading, attack the of the objections overruled, has are a court not determined those objections complaint. Applying filed a plaintiff that has valid (2) days reasoning periods to time that [within plaintiffs complaint on the defendant of the after service complaint], plaintiffs or of amendment most an of Rule 2253 would that construction be reasonable it from the time is determined sixty days defendant has prelimi- has If no plaintiff complaint. that filed a valid filed, that the filing are will be date of nary objections filed, If are that will be the date complaint. Also, require no it makes sense to they are overruled. proceed as if the action continue the defendant will which, court if success- he has before the when *7 ful, litigation. No reasons of policy will terminate the at the paths he these inconsistent require that follow same time. DiCarlo, 731, In 440, 444, (1970). 260

436 Pa. A.2d 733 Pleas extended the Graham Court Common Allegheny not have which would ruling preliminary cover if litigation terminated the sustained.

We find that Graham distinguishable is from the instant that DiCarlo on this Our binding is not Court. case v. Ma- Kerry Coal Co. Beckwith position supported by is Co., chinery (1983). 195, Pa. 462 A.2d 861 Superior 316 Ct. case, held that defendant did joining In that this Court not have preliminary objections the date his sixty days from motion for a more (claiming including lack venue an additional de- were overruled specific pleading) “Graham court, is stating: only fendant without leave by are filed preliminary objections when applicable successful, and, if would result original defendant inor complaint plaintiff an amended Id., 198, at Pa.Superior Ct. dismissed.” 316 being action also See Commercial deleted). (emphasis A.2d 863 at Culp, Banking Corp. 344, 348-49, Superior 297 Pa. Ct. (1982) prelim- files 1154, (“[W]here 443 A.2d as to a litigation terminate the objections which would inary necessary party theory of Graham applies and the sixty day period for joinder begin does not to run until the objections are ruled upon”); Pennsylvania Gas and Water Contractors, Inc., Co. v. Lisbon 288 Pa. Ct. 431 A.2d (“[Wjhere an original de- fendant files preliminary objections the nature of a [in to less than all counts of a complaint, multi-count demurrer] Graham does not apply and the sixty day period for joinder of additional goes usual”; defendants forward as demurrer challenging only one of two counts of complaint would not have terminated the litigation successful, even if and par- sought ties joined to be were necessary parties to both counts of the complaint).

In case, the instant the preliminary objections in question only challenged and, venue if sustained, would not have litigation. Therefore, terminated the Graham does not apply and the sixty-day period lapsed prior to appellants’ filing of the writ to an additional defend- Thus, ant. we must determine whether the lower court in refusing erred to allow Cerene and Becker an extension of time within which to join Laughlin.

Under Rule leave of court must sought, be shown, cause secure of an additional defend ant after expiration period of the sixty-day prescribed for such joinder. Zakian v. Liljestrand, *8 (1970); 264 A.2d 400, 641 Smith, v. 381 Pa. Coppage 403-04, 247, (1955). 113 A.2d 249-50 The peti defendant’s seeking tion an extension of time to an additional defendant must contain:

(1) some justification reasonable or excuse for delay; (2) a statement of the facts alleged to render the proposed liable, additional with, defendant alone or liable or liable defendant, over to or to the proper liable defendant on a claim; cross allegations that the joinder late will not prejudicial proposed be to the additional defendant. It should ask for leave to file both the praecipe and the complaint 2252(b). called for by Rule

104 (1977) (footnotes 2d 2253:3.1 at 108 Goodrich-Amram § see also Farmer v. General added); omitted) (emphasis Co., 349, Superior 352, 413 A.2d 271 Pa. Ct. Refractories 701, for the (1979).4 Whether there is “cause 702 shown” joinder for the of an allowance of an extension time a matter the discretion of additional defendant is within its an court, and decision will not be reversed absent lower v. Liljestrand, supra 438 Pa. Zakian discretion. abuse of Cross, 82, Marnell v. 641; Pa. 255, at 264 A.2d at 372 v. 688, Farmer General Refrac- 83-84, (1953); 92 A.2d 689 702; Co., 352, 413 supra tories Pa.Super. at A.2d at 271 Foods, Co., 254 Pa. Bishopric Inc. v. Products Welch Desiderio 256, 1007, (1978); 259, 385 A.2d 1008 Superior Ct. Inc., 137, Center, 135, 242 v. R & R Tire Superior Pa. Ct. Lamoree v. Penn Central (1976); 363 1198 A.2d 380, 384, 357 A.2d Co., 238 Pa. Ct. Transportation (1976). sufficient Additionally, demonstrating “the burden of defend joinder cause allow the unseasonable with to rest[s] Co., Foods, supra Products Bishopric Inc. ant.” Welch Coopers 1008; accord 258-59, at 385 A.2d at Pa.Super. Co., Insurance Lybrand v. Penn Mutual & State In (1977). Ct. A.2d Commonwealth for an sufficient cause extension determining what is defendant, additional courts joinder time for an to achieved objectives sought be guided by should be procedure conjunc by use of the additional 60-day for which a limitation was purpose tion with rules capsule, use. In a these placed on its unrestricted appellants correctly point Cerene and Becker’s All out that four incorporated in their complaint against Laughlin was reference Thus, find pro tunc. we an additional defendant nunc motions erroneously failed to court found that motions that the lower proposed allegations de- would render additional include which defendants, liable, with, to the or over fendant alone liable liable Additionally, appel- proper liable to the defendants on a cross-claim. prejudicial alleged not be lants that the late would discusses, However, opinion proposed as our additional defendant. criterion, remaining satisfy appellants have failed we find that justification namely, or excuse that demonstrate reasonable delay. *9 105 were attempt an to to provide simplify means of expedite disposition involving matters numerous parties subjecting original ... without plaintiff in the delay prosecution unreasonable of portion his of litigation. Liljestrand, supra 256, Zakian v. 438 at Pa. 264 A.2d at (citation omitted). 641 Smith, also Coppage supra See 405, 381 Pa. at 113 A.2d at 250 (procedural rules should “be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inex pensive determination every action or proceeding to which they applicable”); are Pantalone, Ianni v. 238 Pa. 772, A.2d Ct. 361 774 (procedural governing procedure rules party third should “be construed accomplish purpose ‘[avoiding] multiplicity of suits in by adjudicating rights one suit and liabilities of all of parties to a single transaction which constitutes ...”); cause of action’ Superi Martinelli v. Mulloy, 135, or Ct. 299 21 (1972) (Rule 2252(a) A.2d should interpreted be broadly only “not to compel every interested person to defend the plaintiff, action but also to save the original possible defendant from harm from resulting loss of if might compelled evidence as result to await the end of the suit before proceeding against those from whom contribution”). he seeks

Moreover, the in length joining an addi delay tional not, itself, defendant is in and of determinative allowed; rather, whether or not should be “[t]he length of the be delay must viewed the context of the particular case.” Zakian v. Pa. Liljestrand, supra 438 at 642; 264 A.2d at Foods, Bishopric Inc. v. Welch Co., supra Pa.Super. 1008; Products at 385 A.2d at Penn Transportation Co., Lamoree v. Central supra Pa.Super. at at 597. A.2d Here, Cerene and contend Becker that did try Laughlin as an additional defendant within a relatively served, short period time after the complaint was that it was not until a significant period time later that the lower court determined that initial of the praecipe *10 due to the delay assert that the improper. They

was was for writ to served on unexplained praecipe failure of the be only notice of this failure they and that received Laughlin, to the preliminary objections joinder filed Laughlin when They four months later. also ar- complaint approximately disregarded that defects should be when gue procedural affected, are not and that rights parties substantial construe the rules so liberally procedural this should Court of suits. multiplicity as to avoid a arguments careful we find that the scrutiny, After to the late justify joinder Cerene and Becker presented by than a “house of cards.” These nothing constitute more upon appellants’ initial assertion arguments premised are that, once the reasonably preliminary believed they that filed, period challenging sixty-day venue were discussed, already As of Rule 2253 was tolled. we have however, unfounded. Coal Co. v. Kerry this belief was See Co., Gas and Machinery supra; Pennsylvania Beckwith Thus, Contractors, Inc., ap supra. Co. v. Lisbon Water Laughlin within failing had no excuse for pellants v. Howard P. period. See Moore required sixty-day 519, 522 340 A.2d Co., Superior 235 Pa. Ct. Foley (inadvertence justification is not sufficient (1975) of counsel defendant); Kearney’s an additional delay joining for 78, 82, A.2d Account, Ct. everyone is of the is no excuse because

(ignorance law law). additional reasons Appellants’ presumed know praecipe of the for writ to be namely, for the failure delay, county, to another transfer of the case served and the expiration following of time period concern cause for and, thus, good do not constitute period sixty-day Becker both and were untimely joinder. the initial Cerene there accident were Kovalesky’s at the time of present Yet, did not Laughlin’s involvement. fore aware Laughlin as an additional file the for writ praecipe of the four months after service until almost for Additionally, them. their motion complaint upon until five approximately was not filed tunc months the after writ. Under circumstances, these we do not believe that Cerene and Becker acted expeditiously. “Before the defendant can ask him secure a just, speedy help Court to inexpensive determination of the suit by permitting late he joinder, must have acted expeditiously himself.” Zakian v. Liljestrand, supra 438 Pa. at 264 A.2d (emphasis at 642 in original); Coopers Lybrand & v. Penn State Co., Mutual Insurance supra 32 Pa.Commonwealth at 379 A.2d at 903 (empha- sis in original).

Although we in mind bear that the procedural rules should be construed so as to suits, avoid a multiplicity *11 upon burden is their justify delay in defendants joining the proposed Here, additional defendant. we find that appellants failed to their satisfy burden of demonstrat- ing sufficient cause to allow the unseasonable joinder. Therefore, part we affirm that of the October dismissing order the motion of Cerene and Becker for leave an additional defendant nunc tunc. pro Appeal II. of Esther Shapes Williams and Aluminum Having found that Cerene and Becker’s praecipe for writ to join Laughlin as an additional defendant was untimely filed under the rules of procedure, civil must we now determine whether the lower court denied properly request appellants Esther Williams and Aluminum Shapes, for joinder. late Appellants contend that they received no notice of the basis of Cerene and Becker’s assertions of liability against Laughlin until Cerene and Becker filed their to plaintiff’s request answers for the production of witness on February statements Appellants then raised their claim in against Laughlin their answer and new matter filed on February 1984. At that time, they believed that Laughlin had been properly joined by Cerene and Becker through the latter’s of the praecipe for Appellants writ. also claim that could they not have filed their answer new matter earlier because the case was transferred from Philadelphia to Schuylkill Coun- Then, ty. upon receiving notice of the defective service of for filed a motion writ, promptly praecipe appellants tunc. join Laughlin

leave to in delay reasons for their appellants’ find that We assuming that Esth inadequate. are Even Laughlin joining not of the Shapes Aluminum did know er Williams joinder upon for writ of praecipe service of the defective on his Laughlin preliminary until filed Laughlin this have known that they should March in the sixty-day period expiration filed after the was Thus, prae their reliance of Rule 2253. violation against Laughlin their cross-claim asserting cipe joinder arguments side Additionally, appellants’ unjustified. was join Laughlin themselves failed to they fact that step the complaint. following service sixty days within un excuse is that were profferred Appellants’ only liability. Appellants apparent Laughlin’s possible aware the cause investigation as to to conduct their own ly failed persons. of other liability potential of the accident and the refusing permit joinder an order upheld This Court has failure to effect a where “the an additional defendant failure to to defendant’s attributable timely joinder was Foods, Inc. v. investigation.” Welch adequate conduct an 261, 385 Pa.Super. at Co., supra Products Bishopric Here, promptly have acted appellants could A.2d at 1009. depositions by taking receiving complaint, e.g., *12 after Becker, thereby and co-defendants, and Cerene of their liability Laughlin. potential and the existence discovered assert lapse only Instead, period let the sixty-day and Becker belat Laughlin after Cerene against ed a claim Although we seek joinder. for filed a writ edly suits, rules have the procedural multiplicity to avoid a ignored. and should not be purpose for a promulgated been time limita encouraged disregard not be Parties should of the court. grace relying in favor of tions case, do of this we Therefore, the circumstances under of demon- met their have burden appellants not that believe Therefore, we delay. justify sufficient cause to strating order dismiss- the October part affirm that also ing the motion of Esther Williams and Aluminum Shapes to leave an additional defendant nunc pro tunc. hold

Accordingly, we that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in entering the order below.5

Affirmed.

CAVANAUGH, J., files a dissenting opinion. CAVANAUGH, Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. After reviewing the record and case, the briefs in I this would find that the defendants have reasonably explained their in delay seeking to join additional defendant Laughlin. I Accordingly, would con- clude that the lower court its abused discretion in refusing to grant leave to the additional tunc.

497 A.2d 938 COURTNEY, Esquire, Mercandante, Paul E. Louis J. Jr. and Mauro, individually trading Ben J. as Northview Development Company, Appellees, Estates HOMES, INC., Appellant. RYAN Pennsylvania. Court of Argued March 1985. Aug.

Decided 1985. It is well-settled that: merely judgment, An abuse of discretion is not an error of if but reaching misapplied, a conclusion the law is overridden or or the unreasonable, judgment manifestly exercised is or the result or ill-will, partiality, prejudice, bias or as shown the evidence or the *13 record, discretion is abused. Rosol, 91, 93-94, Mielcuszny (1934). 176 A.