Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Y.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The defect stands removed. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to hear the revision for admission today itself.

3. This revision under Section 115 C.P.C. has arisen from order dated 26.11.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad rejecting application of plaintiffs-revisionists finding that he has failed to satisfy requirement of proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C..

4. It is contended that in agreement for sale, there was mention that property is under loan in the Bank and seller shall execute sale deed after discharging the loan amount but that was not done. However, in the plaint neither the Bank was made party nor any relief was sought against Bank with respect to original deed of property in dispute. The suit was instituted in 2004. An amendment application has been preferred on 8.11.2010 wherein learned counsel for the applicant could not show as to why amendment sought could not have been brought on record at the time of filing of the suit itself.

5. It is no doubt true that initially, amendment a