JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—An Original Suit No. 457 of 1983 was filed by the petitioner against the respondents No. 2 to 4 in which it had been claimed by him that he became the owner of the disputed property vide sale deed executed by Shiv Prasad in his favour. The case of the respondents was that they had purchased the property from one Siddhu. By means of the amendment application the petitioner sought an amendment to add paragraph 1A in the plaint wherein it was clarified as to how Shiv Prasad, from whom the plaintiff had purchased the property, was the erstwhile owner of the property in question. A further amendment was sought for bringing on record certain subsequent events which had taken place in the year 1985. The trial Court vide its order dated 16.9.1998 allowed the amendment on payment of costs of Rs. 300/-. Challenging the said order, the defendant-respondents filed revision which was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 19.7.2002. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri Shri Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. 3. No doubt the amendment application was filed at a very late stage but it cannot be said that the same would change the basic nature of the case. The case of the petitioner has always been that he had purchased the property in question from one Shiv Prasad. By the amendment, the petitioner has only sought to incorporate the fact that as to how Shiv Prasad became the owner. As such, in my view, to determine the real issue and for proper adjudication of the case, in the interest of justice the said amendment ought to have been allowed. The other amendment sought was to bring on record subsequent events which had taken place after the filing of the suit and as such the same also deserves to be allowed. 4. However, keeping in view the fact that the amendment application had been filed after more than a decade, the defendants deserve to be adequately compensated for the same. The other amendment sought was to bring on record subsequent events which had taken place after the filing of the suit and as such the same also deserves to be allowed. 4. However, keeping in view the fact that the amendment application had been filed after more than a decade, the defendants deserve to be adequately compensated for the same. The delay may, in certain cases, be such a factor which may require the amendment application to be rejected but in the present case, since the said amendment sought would be necessary for the proper adjudication of the case, hence the same should have been allowed but only on payment of adequate costs, which this Court assesses at Rs. 10,000/-. The order dated 19.7.2002 passed by the Revisional Court, setting aside the order of the trial Court is thus liable to be quashed on payment of costs. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 19.7.2002 passed by the revisional court is set aside and the order dated 16.9.1998 is modified to the extent that the amendment application dated 14.5.1998 filed by the petitioner shall stand allowed, subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- before the trial Court, within six weeks from today. In case of default, the amendment application shall stand automatically rejected. 6. It is further directed that the trial court shall hear and decide the case as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the date of deposit of costs. 7. No costs. Petition Allowed. ————