JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 19.1.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City Jaipur, whereby he allowed an application of the plaintiff (respondent) filed u/O. 6 R. 17 r/w O. 1 R. 10 CPC was allowed. 2. The facts leading to this revision petition are that plaintiff (Khem Chand - respondent) instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against the predecessor of defendant (petitioner) averring therein that plot No. B-35 was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 17.8.1962 executed by Thakur Shivkalayan Singh and that the defendant-petitioner (owner of plot No. B-36, which is situated towards west of suit plot No. B-35) started construction by entering into suit plot, by encroaching upon 13 x 50 ft. land of suit plot of the plaintiff. Thus plaintiff also claimed for possession of 13 x 50 ft land. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner. After the trial, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 19.5.1975 against which the plaintiff (respondent) preferred first appeal before the District Judge Jaipur City. During pendency of the first appeal before the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, the plaintiff filed an application on 20.8.1997 u/0. 6 R. 17 r/w 0. 1 R. 10 CPC, seeking amendment of plaint for addition of para 7 and for impleading defendant Nos. 3,4 & 5 as necessary parties to the suit. This application was opposed by the defendant-petitioner inter alia on the ground that on account of the amendment of the plaint and impleadment of few other defendants after dismissal of the suit but during pendency of the appeal, the nature of the suit, itself stands changed, which can't be allowed at appellate stage. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined their rival submissions with reference to the conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Court in the impugned order. 5. The controversy arises out of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant (petitioner) was as to whether amendment could be permitted by the first appellate Court belatedly after three years of the dismissal of the suit itself particularly when the application seeking amendment and impleading was filed on 20.8.1997 i.e. after inordinate delay of about 17 years. The controversy arises out of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant (petitioner) was as to whether amendment could be permitted by the first appellate Court belatedly after three years of the dismissal of the suit itself particularly when the application seeking amendment and impleading was filed on 20.8.1997 i.e. after inordinate delay of about 17 years. Another objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant (petitioner) is that the suit could have been filed within three years of the decision of first suit and now by way of aforesaid amendment, changes have been sought by the plaintiff by adding additional para in the plaint, which would not only adversely affect interest of the defendant- petitioner in the suit but would also result in multiplicity of uncalled for litigation thereby frustrating the very object of legislature as envisaged u/O. 6 R. 17 CPC which would stand defeated. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions in the matters of (1) Miss Kamlesh Bhardwaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1982 WLN 358 , (2) Ganeshi Rai & Anr. v. First Additional District Judge, Ghazipur & Ors., AIR 1992 All. 25 , (3) Smt. Uma Gupta v. Smt. Sushila & Anr., AIR 1989 MP 169 , (4) Shanti Kitmar R. Canji v. The Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1972 SC 1719 & (5) Bhawani Dass v. Kaushalya Rani, AIR 1981 P&H 196 . 6. Prima facie, I am of the view that the appellate Court before allowing amendment as well as impleadment of the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 to the suit, has recorded a specific finding in para 5 of the impugned order that in view of the pleading which is subject-matter of the dispute between the parties on which suit was filed by the plaintiff but was dismissed by the trial Court by specifically holding that the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were necessary parties for being impleading to the suit, the parties can be permitted to be impleaded even at the appellate stage, if they are vitally interested in the decision of the suit. I do not find any infirmity, impropriety or jurisdictional error in allowing the amendment and impleadment of the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 to the suit. I do not find any infirmity, impropriety or jurisdictional error in allowing the amendment and impleadment of the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 to the suit. It is not a case where settled position would result in being unsettled at this stage nor in my view, it would affect rights of the defendants in any manner, since it is always open to raise specific objections to the maintainability of the suit. It is always open to the appellate Court to allow amendment to the pleadings even at the appellate stage if reasons advanced are just for proper adjudication of the rights of the parties to the suit. After dismissal of the suit, an appeal has already been preferred by the aggrieved party (plaintiff) and it is yet to be heard and decided finally. Hence, in my view, no prejudice would cause to the defendant as a consequence of amendment or impleadment, since the rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated upon and finally decided in appeal. The delay and laches, in my view would not come in way of the plaintiff nor it would affect his rights in any manner. The law is well settled that the amendment of the plaint can be permitted in appropriate cases even at the appellate stage. I am fortified with the view expressed in the decisions:-(1) Suraj Prakash Bhasin v. Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 485 ; (2) AIR 1985 SC 271 and (3) Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. K.M. Jyoti Sahay & Anr., 1984 (Suppl.) SCC 594 . 7. As a result of the above discussion, this revision petition is dismissed summarily. However, since the appeal is pending before the appellate Court, I deem it proper to direct the appellate Court to expeditiously dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law but not later than four months from the submission of certified copy of this order.Revision Dismissed. *******