- (1.) Respondent No. 1 field suit for recovery of disputed amount against respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) Vide order, under challenge, his application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was allowed and the petitioner was allowed to be added as one of the defendants.
(3.) It is apparent from the records that when originally, written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit, they took a specific objection that for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the petitioner, the suit be dismissed. Despite that, respondent No. 1 continued with his suit, led his evidence and also allowed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to complete their evidence. He moved application for amendment, as referred to above, . only on 18.11.2004, after about more than six years of filing of the suit, which, this Court feels has wrongly been allowed by the court below, vide order, under challenge.;