JUDGMENT : MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J. This original petition is filed against Exts.P7 and P8 orders respectively in I.A Nos.4 and 5 of 2021 in O.S No.83 of 2016 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Thalassery. 2. The petitioners are plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the supplemental 3rd plaintiff sought to be impleaded in the suit. The suit is filed seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents herein from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and also restraining them from widening the existing 4 feet pathway into a motorable road. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. 3. The respondents filed Ext.P2 written statement on 06.06.2016 wherein it is contended, inter alia, that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the supplemental 3 rd plaintiff owner of plaint B schedule property has not been made a party to the plaint. 4. The issues were framed in the case in the year 2019 and the first issue framed is whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The second issue framed is regarding whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule properties. 5. The case was posted for trial and the 1 st petitioner was examined as PW1. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Ext.P3 application dated 11.10.2021 to implead the 3 rd petitioner herein as the supplemental 3rd plaintiff in the suit. The reason that the supplemental 3rd plaintiff did not join as plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit is stated in paragraph No.2 of Ext.P3 affidavit, which reads as follows:- “2) The above suit is one for Permanent Prohibitory injunction restarting the defendants and their men from trespassing in to the Plaint schedule properties and from widening the existing 4 feet pathway on its southern side in to Motor able road and also to restrained them from obstructing the construction of compound wall on the southern side of the Plaint schedule properties. We say that the 2 nd deponent is the co-owner of the Plaint "B" schedule property. We say that the 2 nd deponent had already executed a Power of Attorney in the name of 1 st Deponent herein in the year 2016 itself authorizing him to contest the case for and on behalf of the 2 nd deponent as well. We say that the 2 nd deponent is the co-owner of the Plaint "B" schedule property. We say that the 2 nd deponent had already executed a Power of Attorney in the name of 1 st Deponent herein in the year 2016 itself authorizing him to contest the case for and on behalf of the 2 nd deponent as well. But unfortunately the said Power of Attorney was misplaced for a time being and only traced out recently. So the other Petitioner could not make an application to implead the 2 nd deponent herein as a party to the suit. Now the 2 nd deponent is in his native place and she is able to conduct the case for herself. The application to implead the 2 nd deponent as a party to the suit earlier was not intentional but only for the reason stated above.” 6. The petitioners also filed Ext.P4 application for amendment of the cause title of the suit by incorporating the name and address of the supplemental 3rd plaintiff consequent to Ext.P3 application. 7. The 2 nd respondent herein P6 counter statements to Exts.P3 and P4 applications. Paragraph No.2 of Exts.P5 and P6 which are in verbatim reads as follows:- “2. In this connection it is submitted that during the cross examination of PW1 he has admitted that he has no rights over possession of Plaint B Schedule Property. Moreover he has no locus standi to represent Sathi, who is the owner of the property or to file the above impleading the petition in respect of B schedule property.” It is further contended that the applications are highly belated and if the applications are allowed, the respondents would be put to serious prejudice. 8. The learned Munsiff, by Ext.P7 order, dismissed Ext.P3 application for impleading the 3 rd petitioner as supplemental 3 rd plaintiff Ext. P8 order, the application for amendment of cause title of the plaint was also dismissed. In Ext.P7, the learned Munsiff observed that, in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, it is averred that the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is plot ‘E’ in the registered partition deed bearing No.3055/2015 of SRO, Thalassery and that the co-owners of plot ‘E’ are residing in Bangalore and the plaintiffs are managing the property. In Ext.P7, the learned Munsiff observed that, in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, it is averred that the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is plot ‘E’ in the registered partition deed bearing No.3055/2015 of SRO, Thalassery and that the co-owners of plot ‘E’ are residing in Bangalore and the plaintiffs are managing the property. However, in paragraph No.3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs would claim that they are the absolute owners of plaint ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties and that they are in possession of the same. The learned Munsiff observed that the suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs as the absolute owners in possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and that there is absolutely no mention of the execution of power of attorney by the 3 rd petitioner in favour of the 1 st petitioner. The learned Munsiff has thus observed that the petitioners have no consistent case in the plaint. The learned Munsiff also observed that the issues were framed as early as in the year 2019, and the petitioners had ample opportunity to take steps to implead the owner of the plaint B schedule property (3 rd petitioner), in the party array. The application is highly belated and has been made after PW1 has been cross examined and the case has been posted for further evidence. The learned Munsiff held that the attempt on the part of the petitioners is only to fill up the lacunae in the evidence adduced by PW1. Accordingly, Ext.P3 application for impleading was dismissed. By Ext.P8, the learned Munsiff rejected Ext.P4 application for amendment finding that the trial of the suit has already commenced and the application is hit by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned Munsiff also observed that the plaintiffs have no case that despite due diligence they could not have brought out the amendment earlier. Exts.P7 and P8 orders are impugned in this original petition. 9. Heard Sri.Satheesan Alakkadan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Anuroopa Jayadevan the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent. Though service of notice is complete, there is no appearance for other respondents. 10. The suit is of the year 2016. The written statement was filed as early as in the year 2016 wherein the respondents have taken a specific contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Though service of notice is complete, there is no appearance for other respondents. 10. The suit is of the year 2016. The written statement was filed as early as in the year 2016 wherein the respondents have taken a specific contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Issues were framed in the year 2019. The first issue framed in the case is whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. However, Ext.P3 application for impleading and Ext.P4 application for amendment were filed only in the year 2021. The reason stated in Ext.P3 application for the supplemental 3rd plaintiff not joining as a plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit is that the supplemental 3rd plaintiff had executed a power of attorney in the name of the 1 st petitioner and the same was misplaced and therefore an application to implead her could not be made earlier. It is further stated that the supplemental 3 rd plaintiff her native place and the petitioners have filed Exts.P3 and P4 applications. 11. It is to be noted that in Ext.P1 plaint, there is an averment that the co-owner of plot ‘E’ is residing at Bangalooru and the 1 st plaintiff share of the property on her behalf. It is stated in Ext.P3 application that the supplemental 3 rd plaintiff had executed a power of attorney in favour of the 1 st plaintiff authorizing him to contest the case on her behalf as well, but the same was misplaced, and therefore the application could not be filed earlier and that she is back in station and the petitioners have filed Exts.P3 and P4 applications. The affidavit accompanying Ext.P3 has also been sworn to by the 3 rd petitioner. 12. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, envisages that the court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any person, who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. The object of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute can be determined in their presence. However, the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added, is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 13. No doubt, the applications are filed at a belated stage. Exts.P3 and P4 applications were made after the trial had commenced and PW1 was cross examined. However, the petitioners have in Ext.P3 explained why the same was filed at a belated stage. Further, it was the respondents’ own case that the 3 rd petitioner is a necessary party to the suit. The impleadment of the 3 rd petitioner will not alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action. It will avoid multiplicity of litigation. The object of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is to discourage contests on technical pleas and to save honest and bona fide claimants from being non-suited. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the petitioners to implead the 3 rd petitioner as supplemental 3 rd plaintiff to the suit deserves to be granted in the interest of justice. Ext.P7 order is therefore liable to be set aside. 14. Ext.P4 application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amending the cause title of the suit consequent to impleading the 3 rd petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff by separate order stating that the trial of the suit has already commenced and the application is hit by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and the plaintiffs have no case that despite due diligence they could not have brought out the amendment earlier. It is trite that mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment. In Pankaja v . Yellappa [2004 KHC 1297], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, an amendment should not be allowed. It is trite that mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment. In Pankaja v . Yellappa [2004 KHC 1297], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, an amendment should not be allowed. The Court held that the amendment has to be allowed or disallowed, exercising the discretion based on evaluation of facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. The Court further observed that if the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, the same should be allowed. Order 1 Rule 10(4) of CPC provides that when a defendant is added, the plaint shall be amended. Ext.P4 application is for a formal amendment of plaint to amend the cause title, consequent to impleading the 3 rd petitioner. The learned Munsiff dismissed Ext.P3 application for impleading by Ext.P7 and this Court has already found that Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside. Consequently, Ext.P8 order is also liable to be set aside. However, I am of the view that the prejudice caused to the respondents on account of delay has to be compensated by costs. 15. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, Exts.P7 and P8 orders are set aside and Exts.P3 and P4 applications are allowed on the petitioners paying an amount of Rs.2,500/- each as cost to the respondents. The cost shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of.