JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been filed by Shri Bansi Lal defendant against the dismissal of his application under Order 6 Rule 17, read with Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, for amendment of this written statement so as to take an additional plea that Sarvshri Satish Chand, Smt. Satya Devi, Mohinder Singh and Daulat Ram were necessary parties to the suit and without impleading them the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. 2. The suit was filed by Sarvshri Jaikaran Dass and Daulat Ram sons of Salig Ram and Yog Ram plaintiffs against Sarvashri Bansi Lal and Sudharshan Dass defendants for possession of the land. In this case the issues had been framed and the plaintiff's evidence had concluded. It was only thereafter that the defendants came up with this application for amendment which was opposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the persons named in the application were not necessary parties and that the application was mala fide. 3. The suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement, dated 17th January, 1960 with regard to the land measuring 8 kanals 2 marlas covered by khasra No. 630.Amendment of pleadings can be made with the permission of the Court by a party under the provisions of Rule 17ORDER6 of the C.P.C which reads as:- "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties." From the rule, therefore, it would follow that it is the duty of the Court to allow amendment of pleadings when it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy in the suit. The provisions of the Code allow a wide discretion to the Courts in the matter of amendment of pleadings. The main considerations to be borne in mind while allowing amendment of pleadings are the advancement of the interest of substantial justice and the avoidance of the multiplicity of litigation. Leave, however, to amend the pleadings ought to be refused only when the party applying has acted or by its mistake has done some injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated by an award of cost. 4. Leave, however, to amend the pleadings ought to be refused only when the party applying has acted or by its mistake has done some injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated by an award of cost. 4. In the instant case the petitioner wants the permission of the Court for amendment so as to take the objection that Sarvshri Satish Chand, Smt. Satya, Mohinder Singh and Daulat Ram were necessary parties and for not having joined them as parties the suit was bad for non-joinder of the parties and was liable to be dismissed.Rule 13ORDER1 of the C.P.C. reads:- "All objections on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived." According to this rule the objections to the frame of the suit on account of defect in parties should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity so that the plaintiff may be able to amend his plaint and add those persons as parties to the suit if necessary. If this is not done, the objection would be deemed waived. In the instant case no objection was taken at the earliest possible opportunity. But the defendant has moved this application for amendment of written statement after the conclusion of the evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant has stated in his application for amendment that out of the total 1 and 2 Kanals and 3 Marlas covered by Khasra No. 650 Min mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint and para No. 4 of the written statement, 10 Marlas have been sold by a registered sale-deed, dated 9th December, 1963, in favour of Satish Chand s/o Bhagat Ram with the consent of the parties regarding which there was litigation that started between the parties. That the present suit land was also a part of the same land. The defendant has not stated as to what was the ground and why he could not take up this plea in his earlier written statement. He has not assigned any reason for the same. That the present suit land was also a part of the same land. The defendant has not stated as to what was the ground and why he could not take up this plea in his earlier written statement. He has not assigned any reason for the same. The defendant has himself shown that out of this Khasra No. 650 Min, which is a vast area of 2 Marlas, 10 Malras had been sold to Satish Chand and others and the disputed land is also a part of that very land but that does not mean that the suit cannot proceed without impleading Satish Chand and others. He has further stated that litigation had already started. If that is so the proper remedy for them is to get all the suits consolidated by making an application before the proper Court if so advised and not that he should move an application for amendment. The object of Rule 13ORDER1 is that all objections with regard to the non-joinder and mis-joinder should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and before the issues are settled. This is a special provision in the Code and, therefore, no amendment on this account can be permitted when he omitted to take up this objection at the proper stage and he must be deemed to have waived that right. 5. According to Ameshwar Prasad and another v. Misri Lal and others (A.I.R. 1961, Patna 28), the objection for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, otherwise the objections shall be deemed to have waived. In that case, however, there was no application for amendment and this objection was sought to be raised only for the first time in second appeal. But the fact remains that all such objections as contemplated under Rule 13ORDER1 of the Civil Procedure Code must be taken before the settlement of the issues. If not taken they must be deemed to have waived and to the similar effect a Jaddu Koeri v. Deep Chand Koeri and another (A.I.R., 1955 Allahabad 172). 6. For the forgoing reasons, I, therefore, affirm the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge and dismiss this revision petition with costs.Revision dismissed. *******