Judgment : Heard. This revision petition filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is canvassed by the unsuccessful plaintiff who lost his case in totality before the trial court for the relief of declaration of his undivided share in the landed property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants who are supposed to be the other co-parceners. It appears from the arguments made by the Bar for respective parties that in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff who is the revision petitioner herein, a petition in I.A.No.143 of 1990 was filed before the appellate judge to implead the proposed ten persons being the proper and necessary parties as they were held as not proper necessary parties by the trial court and for the said reason also, along with other grounds, the trial court dismissed the suit. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner herein is pending. While disposing the abovesaid application, learned appellate judge had rejected the application by saying that though the proposed parties ought to have been added as parties before the disposal of the suit by the trial court itself and having failed to add them as parties to the suit, venturing to add them as parties in the appeal is too late and has become out of time and further they are not the proper and necessary parties. Aggrieved at this, this revision has been filed and being canvassed. 2. While perusing the grounds of revision, Mr.Narayanaswami, learned counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner contended before me that since the reliefs prayed for in the suit were one for the declaration of the plaintiff’s undivided share and consequential relief of injunction against the then defendants, the plaintiff thought that they were unnecessary and not proper parties and that was the reason why have not been added as parties. But however, while the judgment of the trial court is being canvassed in the appeal on the basis of other grounds also to avoid the technical defect, I.A.No.143 of 1990 was filed and consequently the impugned order under this revision was passed. But however, while the judgment of the trial court is being canvassed in the appeal on the basis of other grounds also to avoid the technical defect, I.A.No.143 of 1990 was filed and consequently the impugned order under this revision was passed. The second contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that there was no bar or time fixed by the law or enactments for the courts to add any party whose presence before a litigation is found necessary and essential to adjudicate upon the matter in a given case more efficaciously and therefore the filing of the application in I.A.No.143 of 1990 before the appellate court cannot be rejected on that ground. 3. Per contra, Mr.Sengottian, learned counsel for the respondents herein and some of the defendants emphasised the imperative need for the plaintiff to take steps at the earliest point of time in bringing the proposed parties on record at proper and relevant time on par with O.1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. and that failure to do so would cause serious prejudice to the respondents if the contentions made on behalf of the revision petitioner is accepted. Then he would again say that the revision petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate or reprobate by taking one situation during the trial and totally a different situation during the subsequent stage. For the said reasons, learned counsel would show his protest for this revision. 4. Before proceeding further in the light of the rival contentions made by the Bar as above referred, it has become necessary for me to extract the procedural law provided under O.1, Rule 10, C.P.C. which reads as follows: "10(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff the court may, at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through bona fide mistake and that it is necessary forthe determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon terms as the court thinks just. (2) The court may at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out, and 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.“ A casual lookof the above Rule clinches the fact that there was no fetter or specific mode or limitation provided to strike out any of the parties to a litigation or to add any of the parties who are considered to be necessary for the purpose of adjudicating upon and settling all the questions of law on facts involved in a proceeding totally, completely more effectively and efficaciously. The Rule further envisages particularly in adopting a specific phraseology that the court at any stage of the proceeding adjudicate upon or without the application of either party can doso and exercise such power which would mean the court if satisfied for the above purpose and the object, can proceed to do so even sua motu. What is highly required in exercising such power by the court of law is to find out the stage of the proceedings, whose presence is highly essential and absolutely necessary for the purpose of total and complete adjudication of the questions of law on facts involved in a given case. Once the court is satisfied with that object, then in my view, no other exigency would cause any fetter upon the power of the court. Therefore, if the object is fully satisfied viz. proposed party’s tangible interest is found to be very much involved inn a litigation pending before the court, no matter, whether it is before the trial court or before the appellate court or other proceeding, then woth or without the application, the court has got every power to add them as parties. One more reason which would fortify my above view is that all the appeal proceedings preferred against any order or judgment and decree are deemed to be inn law, the continuation of the initial proceedings and one cannot dispute with the same rationality. One more reason which would fortify my above view is that all the appeal proceedings preferred against any order or judgment and decree are deemed to be inn law, the continuation of the initial proceedings and one cannot dispute with the same rationality. If this sis the legall ratio, I do not come across any obstacle for filing an application under O.1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. to add any parties who are necessary and proper parties for the purpose of adjudicating the matter in hand, fully and effectively. 5. During the course of arguments, it was understood that the proposed parties are also having tangible interest. Of course, it was not confined nor quantified, but however in the undivided suit property. fir the said context, irrespective of the reliefs sought for in the suit, whether it is for a declaration or injunction or partition to adjudicate upon the matter in hand, the apt question of law involved very much in the suit, the proposed parties are to be heard, as to whether they have got any interest and to what extent they have any say in this matter or not. 6. For all the reasons stated above, I feel the approach adopted by the appellate authority while passing the impugned order is not on par with the observation made by me and to this extent, I feel the order became vulnerable and liable to be interfered with. In short, I would make it clear that I have not expressed any view whether they are proper or improperparties. However, for the lack of the proper approach to be adopted by the appellate authority while passing the impugned order, I would like to set aside the same and remand back the entire matter to the lower appellate court for a consideration afresh in accordance with the observation made by me above. Of course, the parties are entitled to vindicate their objections, if any, before the appellate court and after having given full opportunity to both sides, the lower appellate court is directed to dispose of the application afresh along with the appeal, in accordance with law. For the laches committed by the plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner, I am totally disagreeing with him for the reason that he may feel for technical reasons, the plaintiff has not taken any step. For the laches committed by the plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner, I am totally disagreeing with him for the reason that he may feel for technical reasons, the plaintiff has not taken any step. But, however, it is manifest for the laches on his part, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.750 being the costs to counsel for the contesting defendants/ respondents herein, within a period of four weeks from today. On his failure to do so, this order will not take any effect and the impugned order will stand. On payment of the said costs, the remand order will take effect and it will be disposed of along with the appeal by the lower appellate court, as directed. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs.