Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. In this revision petition, order of 20.7.2011 of the lower Court whereby application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section151 CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed, is under challenge by invoking supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. During pendency of the suit for seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents, order of maintenance of status quo ante was made on 15.6.2007. It was, however, reversed by the First Appellate Court on 10.5.2008. When the petitioner-plaintiff challenged the said order of the First Appellate Court in this Court in Civil Revision No.5061 of 2008, defendant-respondent No.5 sold part of the suit property on 12.10.2010. This Court vide its order dated 27.10.2010 had directed the lower Court to dispose of the civil suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year. 3. By way of an amendment sought in the plaint subsequent vendee Babita Rani respondent No.11 in the petition herein, was sought to be impleaded as one of the defendants and challenge to the sale deed dated 12.10.2010 in her favour is sought to be made. It is claimed that it is subsequent event and thus amendment sought for, is necessary to avoid multiplicity and for wholesome and effective adjudication of the dispute. 4. This application was moved by the petitioner-plaintiff on 2.6.2011 when pursuant to directions of this Court the lower Court was moving with speed for conclusion of the proceedings and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants. 5. Counsel for the revisionist-petitioner has contended that subsequent event of sale during pendency of the suit has to be brought on record because it has bearing on adjudication of the suit. Counsel for the respondents- defendants have urged that the sale allegedly made during pendency of the suit was well within the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiffs but they remained unconcerned with the same and continued with the suit and when the same is about to be decided, they brought an application for amendment of the plaint merely to delay and dilate the adjudication of the suit. 6. Counsel for the parties have been heard while going through the grounds of revision petition, impugned order and other facts and attending circumstances available having bearing on the matter. 7. 6. Counsel for the parties have been heard while going through the grounds of revision petition, impugned order and other facts and attending circumstances available having bearing on the matter. 7. Sale of part of the suit property having been effected during the pendency of the suit is not disputed. Even the lower Court has taken cognizance of the same when in the impugned order, it observed as under:- "The effect of the pendency of this civil suit on the subsequent sale-deed dated 12.10.2010 allegedly executed by the defendant No.5 in favour of one Mrs.Babita Rani will be determined by this Court while deciding the civil suit finally." 8. It is thus a subsequent event having bearing on the adjudication of rival claims of the parties in the suit, is not a matter of debate. In these circumstances the question is as to whether amendment in the plaint should have been allowed or not? In Om Parkash Gupta Versus Ranbir B. Goyal, : 2002(1) PLR 799, Hon'ble Supreme Court had, inter alia, held that the subsequent events should be taken into consideration with a view to end multiplicity of litigation as also to shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties. The petitioner reiterating his stand as taken on 4.8.2011 before this Court has stated that he is not to lead any evidence on the amendment sought to be introduced in the plaint. 9. For ready reference relevant part of order dated 4.8.2011 passed by this Court while issuing notice of motion, is reproduced as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will save the parties from further litigation. He also submits at the bar that in case the amendment is allowed, he will not lead any further evidence and the case may proceed further from the present stage." 10. Even when observations of the learned lower Court in the impugned order taking cognizance of the subsequent sale made by respondent- defendant No.5 in favour of Smt. Babita Rani sought to be introduced as respondent-defendant No.9 in the plaint, is taken for consideration, it becomes evident that in absence of the pleadings of the petitioner-plaintiff on this count, it would be legally difficult for the lower Court to determine the impact of subsequent event i.e. the execution of sale deed of 12.10.2010 during pendency of the suit. 11. 11. In any case, this amendment does not bring any surprise to the parties. It also does not affect their rights and liabilities in the suit. When the amendment sought for is a subsequent event of substantive importance and is also necessary for complete, effective and wholesome adjudication of the dispute between the parties, this petition is allowed; setting aside the impugned order, the amendment sought in the plaint is allowed. It is made clear that no further evidence would be led by the plaintiff as undertaken by him. 12. Since the case has already been delayed in its adjudication before the lower Court, the lower Court would decide it within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order even by taking it on day to day basis, if necessary.