JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the court below dismissing two applications for amendment of plaint and impleadment of additional defendant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that order passed by the court below is unsustainable. The trial court has not appreciated the law in correct perspective and dismissed the applications. He has submitted that there was no proof of the fact that plaintiff Lala was also known as Rattan Singh and Ramesh alias Roop Ram was known as Kalu Ram. Plaintiff No.2 appeared as PW1 and did not make any such deposition. Even otherwise, amendment would be barred by proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. According to him, trial court has rightly dismissed the application U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC as sale deed dated 7.9.2006, stated to be executed in favour of Jai Karan Sharma, was prior to filing of suit. Plea has been opposed by counsel representing the respondents. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 4. It appears that plaintiffs Lala and Ramesh alias Roop Ram filed a suit for declaration that decree dated 8.6.1982 passed by civil court at Gurgaon and mutation sanctioned pursuant thereto were null and void. Same were not binding on rights of plaintiffs. They claimed that they were owners in possession of suit land. Consequential relief of injunction was also sought. During the pendency of suit, two applications were moved, one U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC and another U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC. Court below came to the conclusion that the trial of the case had commenced and proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would be attracted. Plaintiffs could not be allowed to raise the plea that they were known by certain other names. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff No.2 appeared as PW1 but never stated that he was known by another name. Application U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC was, thus, rejected. Other application moved U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead a vendee as a party also did not find any favour. Trial court observed that written statement was filed by defendant on 10.4.2007 wherein it was disclosed that land had been sold to some other person. However, plaintiff moved application for impleadment of subsequent vendee after more than three years. Other application moved U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead a vendee as a party also did not find any favour. Trial court observed that written statement was filed by defendant on 10.4.2007 wherein it was disclosed that land had been sold to some other person. However, plaintiff moved application for impleadment of subsequent vendee after more than three years. Fresh suit on amended claim would be barred by limitation. 5. I find no infirmity with the orders passed by the court below. Effort on the part of the plaintiffs at this stage to amend the plaint to claim that they were known by certain other names, is misconceived. Admittedly, trial has been pending for last so many years. It is still at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence. In view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment in plaint would be barred. The other prayer for impleadment of a vendee, who is stated to have purchased the land prior to filing of suit, is also untenable. Revision petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.