JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard the rival contentions regarding validity of the impugned order dated 19.7.2014, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, whereby amendment application, moved by the plaintiff on 19.5.2014, was rejected. It transpires that an Original Suit No.580 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking perpetual injunction on the property, in question, against the sole defendant Smt. Naina Saagi. The basis of the suit was disclosed in the form of two sale deeds dated 23.6.2003 allegedly executed by the power of attorney holder of Smt. Naina Saagi. It is very crucial to note that such power of Attorney was none other but the plaintiff no.2 Mr. Vinay Chhabra himself who executed both the sale deeds in the name of Institution, raised by himself, under the title of “New Dreamland Estate,” whereof he himself was the owner. Defendant/respondent is said to be an NRI woman. After execution of such alleged sale deeds at the strength of so called power of attorney, Mr. Vinay Chhabra instituted the suit, indicated above, seeking perpetual injunction against Smt. Naina Saagi asking the relief that Smt. Saagi be restrained from interfering in the possession of the property. When Smt. Saagi could receive the notice of such suit, she immediately appeared in the Court below and besides filing her Written Statements on 20.10.2003, brought two separate original suits, bearing nos. 690 of 2004 and 375 of 2005 against Mr. Vinay Chhabra and his institution New Dreamland Estate for cancellation all those alleged sale deeds, nay seeking the relief of injunction against Mr. Chhabra from interfering in her possession. It has been admitted that all the three suits, since pertained to the same property, hence were consolidated by the learned Trail Judge and after such consolidation, issues could be framed on 13.10.2011. Such issues covered the controversy, whether Mr. Vinay Chhabra is the owner and he is in the possession of the property in question, as also whether the suit is not maintainable for the reason of lack of possession of Mr. Vinay Chhabra over the property in question. The parties were asked to produce their evidence and Mr. Chhabra produced the affidavit as envisaged under the Code in the form of his examination-in-chief. Although, cross-examination has not begun but meanwhile, he moved an amendment application on 19.5.2014, which has been rejected by the impugned order. Vinay Chhabra over the property in question. The parties were asked to produce their evidence and Mr. Chhabra produced the affidavit as envisaged under the Code in the form of his examination-in-chief. Although, cross-examination has not begun but meanwhile, he moved an amendment application on 19.5.2014, which has been rejected by the impugned order. I have seen such amendment application, wherein alternate relief is being sought to be incorporated in the pleadings. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “G. Nagamma & Another vs. Siromanamma & Another (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 25.” Having perused the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I feel that present controversy is in quite different perspective and the amendment application cannot be allowed for the reason that Mr. Chhabra, in his plaint, as well as in the replica filed on 17.11.2003 in response to Written Statements dated 20.10.2003, has reiterated time and again, in so many words that he is in the possession of the property, in question. Further, this replica was filed on 17.11.2003 and after passing of almost 11 years, this amendment application has now been moved. The adjudication between the parties has already been excessively delayed, if such amendment application is permitted to be allowed, then, it will frustrate the purpose of the amendment of the provision of Order 7 Rule 17 w.e.f. 01.7.2002. This application is liable to be rejected for yet another reason. This is the cardinal principle of moving an amendment application that such an applicant should seek all consequential amendments in the pleadings, which could have arisen, if the amendment sought is allowed. The amendment sought will definitely change the nature of entire pleadings as well as the original suit launched by Mr. Vinay Chhabra, wherefor no consequential amendments, too, have been sought. I feel that the real intention of Mr. Vinay Chhabra is to somehow prolong the litigation between the parties before the Trial Judge. This revision has no force and it is hereby dismissed. The Court also directs that learned Trial Judge to quickly adjudicate all these suits and will not allow unnecessary adjournments, if moved by either of the party.