JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed 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 a the petitioner was allowed to be added as one of the defendants. 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.
(3.) PERUSAL of the record indicates that when written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it was brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was a necessary party. No action was taken ever thereafter, as such, at this belated stage, when trial is almost complete, the trial Court was not justified to allow application for amendment and add the petitioner as one of the defendants, on the ground that he was a necessary party. This fact was within the notice of respondent No. 1 for the last so many years. At this stage, it is also doubtful as to whether now suit against the petitioner will be within limitation or not. In view of facts mentioned above, this revision petition is allowed and consequently, application of respondent No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stands dismissed. Petition allowed.;