Short Note : 1. During pendency of the suit even before commencement of the evidence, the plaintiff-applicant submitted two applications on 31-10-1975 one under Order 6, rule 17 for amendment in the plaint to aver the fact that in collusion with the patwari the defendant has got the name of his mother Dharmobai and another person Ram Ratan entered in the Khasra of Samvat 2031. This was stated to be a subsequent event. As a consequence of this entry in the Khasra in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation the plaintiff moved the amendment application and also prayed for impleading Tulsabai who was stated by the defendant to be the heir of deceased Mehtab Singh. Both these applications were opposed by the defendant By the impugned order the learned trial Judge has rejected both these applications which has led to filing of this revision. 2. Held: The applications have been rejected OD irrelevant considerations. The learned trial Judge has held that the amendment and joinder of the parties will result into misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Beyond stating this magic phrase, no application of mind appears to be disclosed by the impugned order. The learned Judge of the trial Court has not even cared to read the application which is necessitated by action of the defendant which is allegedly responsible for entry in the revenue papers after institution of suit in the name of mother of the defendant Dharmobai and Ram Ratan Some associate of the defendant. Thus the amendment is based on subsequent event and there was no valid ground to reject the application. This amendment if allowed will not result into misjoinder of causes of action and parties. 3. It is true that ordinarily the decree in a suit should accord with the right of the parties as they stand on the date of the institution of the suit. But where it is tried to be shown or shown that the original relief claimed has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate, or that it is necessary to have the decision of the Court on the altered circumstances in order to shorten litigation, it is necessary that notice of subsequent event should be taken by a Court of Jaw. In this view of the law rejection of the amendment application and application for joinder of the parties is wholly illegal and deserves to be set aside. Revision allowed.