JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: (oral) - Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by court below whereby application for amendment of plaint has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that plaintiff did not take steps to effect service on some of the defendants. Suit remained pending for 3 years. Instant application was moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to delete defendants no. 2 to 12. Trial court has erroneously allowed the same. Prayer being in the nature of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, same could not have been allowed under Order 6 Rule 17. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of land as described in the plaint. He also sought injunction to restrain defendants no. 1 to 12 from raising construction in the suit land. An application was moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying that some of the defendants be deleted from the array of parties and some co sharers not impleaded in the original plaint, be added as defendants. This application has been allowed by the court below observing that same has not been moved at belated stage. I find no infirmity with the order. Admittedly, issues have not been framed till now. Thus, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would not be attracted. By way of amendment, no substantive change in plaint has been sought. It does not change the nature of suit. Petitioner has not been able to show what prejudice would be caused to him as a result of amendment. Merely because in the title of the application Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was not specifically mentioned, order cannot be said to be unsustainable. It is well settled that origin of the power vested in the court has to be seen. Thus, revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------