P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 4 have filed this civil revision against the order of the trial court rejecting the prayer for amendment of the written statement. Oppo site party No. 1 has filed Money Suit No. 232 of 1986 for realisation of Rs. 21,11,500/-and for certain other ancillary reliefs. During the hearing of the case, while P. W. 4 was being examined, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed. The said petition was rejected by the trial court, primarily on the ground of delay in filing the petition for amendment. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that mere delay in filing the petition for amendment cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for amendment and the inconvenience, if any, caused to the plaintiff on account of delay could have been compensated by payment of cost. It has been further submitted that the defendants came to know about the facts sought to be included by way of amendment only during the examination of p. W. 4 and there was no deliberate laches on their part. The learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 while supporting the reasons given by the trial Court, has submitted that if the amendment is allowed at a such belated stage, the plaintiff would be prejudiced as certain new facts are being introduced. He has further submitted that the plea relating to non-joinder of parties raised for the first time in the amendment should not be permitted to be raised in view of the provisions contained in Order 1, Rule 13 of the code of Civil Procedure. ( 3 ) LAW is well-settled that mere delay in filing the petition for amendment should not be the sole ground for rejecting an application for amendment unless the facts sought to be introduced by amendment relate to any cause of action which is barred by time at the time of filing the petition for amendment. In the present case, the defendants sought to introduce certain facts raising the question of maintainability of the suit It is of course true that the plaintiff has already examined a few witnesses and is likely to be inconvenienced by introduction of certain new facts in the written statement and it may require to adduce fresh evidence. In the present case, the defendants sought to introduce certain facts raising the question of maintainability of the suit It is of course true that the plaintiff has already examined a few witnesses and is likely to be inconvenienced by introduction of certain new facts in the written statement and it may require to adduce fresh evidence. However, such inconvenience caused to the plaintiff can be compensated by way of cost. On perusal of the order passed by the trial court and after going through the prayer for amendment. I am of the view that the trial court has illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it on technical ground and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) THOUGH the prayer for amendment, as such, is to be allowed, it is found that the defendants have also raised the question of non-joinder of necessary parties in the last sentence of paragraph 21-C sought to be included by way of amendment. It has been stated in the said sentence". . . . . . . THE suit is also leliable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. . . . . . "in view of the provisions contained in Order 1, Rule 13, CPC, requiring a party to raise the question of non-joinder of parties before the settlement of issues, it would not be proper to permit the defendants to raise questions relating to non-joinder of parties as it cannot be said that the ground of objection has arisen subsequently to the settlement of issues. ( 5 ) IN the result, the civil revision is allowed in pah and the impugned order is set aside and the prayer for amendment as indicated in scheduled of the petition for amendment is allowed save and except the last sentence in paragraph 21-C. Needless to point out that if necessary, the trial Court may frame additional issue on the basis of the amendment now allowed and both the parties shall be given adequate opportunity of adducing evidence on the questions now permitted to be raised. This order relating to amendment is subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as cost by defendants 1 and 4 to the plaintiff of his counsel. Such cost should be paid on or before 15th July, 1998. This order relating to amendment is subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as cost by defendants 1 and 4 to the plaintiff of his counsel. Such cost should be paid on or before 15th July, 1998. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21st July, 1998, on which date the trial court shall fix a further date. If the cost is not paid within the time stipulated, the civil revision shall be deemed to have been, dismissed. Revision Petition partly allowed.