JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - One Nirmal Singh (now respondent No.1-defendant) had sold some land to Balkar Singh (now respondent No.4) vide sale deed dated 27.6.2002. Having come to know of the said sale deed, the present petitioner, who is son of non-applicant-vendor-respondent No.1-defenant filed a suit for declaration that the property in suit is ancestral coparcenary property and he was entitled to 1/4th share therein. Respondent No.1- defendant sold some more land vide three sale deeds of different dates. By way of application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, he wanted to amend his plaint in a bid to challenge even the subsequent sale deeds. By way of yet another application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, he wanted to implead the vendees of the subsequent sales as parties. 2. Both these applications were strongly resisted by the contesting respondents and were sequelly dismissed vide the impugned order. 3. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner-plaintiff seeks quashing of the impugned order and seeks to carry out amendments in the plaint. In addition to enlarging the scope of his suit, the petitioner-plaintiff also seeks to challenge the subsequent sale deeds and also seeks impleadment of vendees of the said sales effected by his father. 4. It is claimed that without the proposed amendment sought in the plaint and without vendees of the subsequent sales being impleaded as parties to this litigation, this litigation cannot be decided effectively, completely and wholesomely. It is claimed that the trial court ignored vital and material circumstances having bearing on the case and wrongly rejected prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff. 5. Though respondent No.1 had been appearing through counsel earlier, he made no appearance thereafter. 6. Hearing has been provided. 7. Vide the pending suit, the plaintiff has sought declaration to the effect that he is owner of 1/4th share of the total land and further that he is owner in joint possession thereof. The suit is based on the ground that he is a coparcener and the property is ancestral and coparcenary. He is son of the vendor. He has filed the suit through his attorney and thus, is keeping himself at the back. Copy of power of attorney on record reveals that the plaintiff himself is living in USA. 8. The suit is based on the ground that he is a coparcener and the property is ancestral and coparcenary. He is son of the vendor. He has filed the suit through his attorney and thus, is keeping himself at the back. Copy of power of attorney on record reveals that the plaintiff himself is living in USA. 8. Counsel for the petitioner citing judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Shaw and another Versus Farida Khatoon and another, [2005(2) Law Herald (P&H) 786 (SC)] : 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 651, Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Versus Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. & others, [2013(2) Law Herald (SC) 1240 : 2013(2) Land L.R. 292 (SC)] : 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 875 and Abdul Rehman and another Versus Mohd. Ruldu and others, [2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 4726 : 2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3486 (SC)] : 2012(4) RCR (Civil) 481 has urged that transferees pendente lite need to be impleaded as parties and effective adjudication of the matter in litigation cannot be done in their absence. It is claimed that the amendment sought to be introduced rather would minimise the litigation. It is urged that even change in the nature of relief claimed by way of amendment in the pleadings is not be considered as a change in the nature of the suit and power of amendment of pleadings is to be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice between the parties. 9. There is no dispute that amendment in pleadings is permissible at any stage including the stage of arguments and even when the case is at the appellate stage if such an amendment is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute. While dismissing the application of the plaintiff, Has noticed this proposition of law, learned lower court even questioned maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction whereby restraint is sought against the Karta from alienating the coparcenary property. 10. Merely because the plaintiff is prosecuting his cause very slowly is no ground to reject the amendment sought for by the suitor. Further, if other co-owners of the land with the plaintiff have not been impleaded as parties in this litigation also is no ground to reject the prayer of amendment of the plaint. 10. Merely because the plaintiff is prosecuting his cause very slowly is no ground to reject the amendment sought for by the suitor. Further, if other co-owners of the land with the plaintiff have not been impleaded as parties in this litigation also is no ground to reject the prayer of amendment of the plaint. Perusing the revenue record when the lower court did not find name of the plaintiff as a co-owner, it found this circumstance against the plaintiff. 11. The fact, however, remains that name of Nirmal Singh father of the plaintiff impleaded as non-applicant-respondent No.1-defenant is there in the revenue record. Merely because the plaintiff had not deposited processfee thrice for service of defendant No.4 through publication, this amendment sought in the plaint could not have been rejected. The lower court was free to pass an order within the legal scope against the plaintiff for noncompliance of orders of the court regarding summoning of defendant No.4. 12. It has also been noticed by the learned lower court that earlier minor son of the petitioner-plaintiff had also filed a civil suit through his mother against non-applicant-defendants No.1 to 3 before the civil court but the same later was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn on 9.11.2002. This ground also ipso-facto does not go against the plaintiff in setting up his independent and separate case. 13. Even if the proposed amendment brings some change in the nature of the suit in view of Abdul Rehman and another’s case (supra), that ground is also not available to the respondents. 14. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, setting aside the impugned order and accepting the revision petition, both the applications viz. amendment of plaint as also under Order I Rule 10 CPC are allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be paid to the opposite side. 15. However, it is made clear that since the suit pertains to the year 2002, the lower court would finally decide the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, even by conducting day to day proceedings, if required. 16. Nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on merits of the suit pending before the lower court. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ————————