IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7123 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: March 22, 2011 Amit Mehta and others .. Petitioners Vs. Khubi Ram and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Respondents No.1 to 8, who are the contesting respondents, have been duly served. The remaining are stated to be perfoma respondents, as such, their service is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she wants to add a preliminary objection to the effect that Smt. Ghosan and Smt. Monika being legal heirs of Har Swaroop are necessary parties to the suit, but they have not been impleaded as defendants, therefore, the suit is bad for non- joinder of the necessary parties. The plea is quite legal one which should have been allowed by the trial court. The trial court appears to have been moved by the fact that the defendants could not take this plea earlier despite due diligence. Any way, the delay in filing such application could be compensated with costs, but the respondents cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner. They could apply for impleading them as parties. In view of the matter, this petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the proposed amendment sought for is allowed. However, in view of the fact that the respondents had come to know about the parties to be added on filing an application, they are allowed to move necessary application for adding the necessary parties. March 22, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge