REKHA SHARMA, J.

1. Three applications, one under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10, another under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and the third under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seemingly simple have been a witness to marathon sessions of arguments. Mercifully, arguments on the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code have concluded and though the other two applications are still to see conclusion of arguments, I am proceeding with the order on the application seeking amendment of the plaint and impleading of two new parties namely Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. and theExport-Import Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the EXIM Bank). But first, the background.

2. The Government of Ethiopia proposes to set-up sugar factories at Addis Ababa. The project is being funded by the Government of India through EXIM Bank to the tune of US $ 122,000,000 (Dollars one hundred twenty two million) on certain terms and conditions which were reduced into writing by means of a Dollar Credit-line Agreement dated October 04, 2007 between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and EXIM Bank. In order to give effect to the project, defendant No.2, namely, Tendaho Sugar Factory Project which is a company incorporated under the laws of Ethiopia and is owned and controlled by the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, invited tenders for Juice Extraction Plant, Steam Generation Plant, Power Generation Plant, Process Home Plant and related modernization packages. The plaintiff and some other companies including defendant No.1, namely, M/s. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. responded to the invitation of tenders by submitting their respective bids. The bid of the plaintiff, after some negotiations, was accepted for Steam Generation Plant vide a communication from defendant No.2, dated September 17, 2007. In so far as defendant No.1 is concerned, it succeeded in procuring two contracts, namely, Juice Extraction Plant and Power Generation Plant. This acceptance of two bids of defendant No.1 brought into play the „EXIM Bank Disbursement Schedule?, under which it was necessary to proceed through a single Engineering, Projects Management and Construction (hereinafter called the EPC) Contract method. As per this method, any bidder who won two or more bid packages became eligible to act as a `Single EPC Contractor”. Since defendant No.1 had won two bids, it was appointed to act as `Single EPC Contractor?. The plaintiff was informed about this appointment of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 through a communication dated December 07, 2007. The plaintiff was also informed that, “being a winning bidder of Steam Generation Plant, it will be retained as a sub-contractor to the main EPC Contractor without any alteration in the agreed technical and commercial aspects including the time schedule, as already negotiated and finalized.” On the same date defendant No.2 also sent a letter to defendant No.1 intimating it about its appointment as „Single EPC Contractor?, with the stipulation that the winning bidders of other packages were to be retained as sub-contractors without any alteration in the agreed technical and financial aspects as already finalized with individual bidders.

3. It is thus the case of the plaintiff that it was to act as a sub-contractor to the EPC contractor, that is, defendant No.1 without any alterations in the agreed financial and technical aspects which, as per it, stood already finalized with defendant No.2. It is also its? case that in order to finalize the type of contract agreement to be signed between the EPC contractor and the winning bidders of other packages, a joint meeting between the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 was held on 19th & 20th December, 2007 at Addis Ababa in which it was categorically agreed that a contract would be entered i