JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), vide which respondent-plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint has been allowed. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted a suit for partition in June 2019. Before the defendant-petitioner could even file their written statements, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed by the plaintiff on 03.10.2019, in which it was indicated that subsequent to filing of the plaint, he came to know about the factum of property being transferred vide sale-deed dated 26.02.2019 and also that the eastern wall has been demolished on 10.01.2019, for which requisite amendments in the plaint were necessary. 3. The defendant No.3-present petitioner opposed such amendment application and contended that the amendment as sought, ought not to be granted. 4. Learned Trial Court vide its order dated 31.10.2019 allowed the amendment application, inter alia, observing that the plaintiff has sought to bring subsequent developments and facts on record, the corresponding amendment in the prayer, which are necessary while observing that written statement has not been filed. 5. Mr. Shashi Prakash Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order impugned dated 31.10.2019, contended that the order passed by the Court below is an unreasoned and nonspeaking order. The Court below has cursorily allowed the amendment application, for which, impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned, this Court finds that the order impugned does not conform to a valid and just order. The learned Trial Court was required to give better reasoning as to why the application is being allowed. 7. In normal circumstances, the matter would have been remanded to the Trial Court, but the same would require issuance of notice to other party. Hence, instead of remanding the matter, this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, proceeds to decide the application itself as in ultimate analysis, the order is otherwise in accordance with law. 8. Hence, instead of remanding the matter, this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, proceeds to decide the application itself as in ultimate analysis, the order is otherwise in accordance with law. 8. It is not in dispute that the suit in question was instituted in June, 2019, whereafter the plaintiff has filed amendment application on 03.10.2019, inter alia, indicating that he came to know that the property in question has been transferred by defendants No.1 and 2 to defendant No.3 on 26.02.2019 and that the defendant No.3 has demolished the eastern wall of the property. 9. In cases where the suit itself is at the initial stage and no written statement has been filed by the respondent, the Courts are required to decide the amendment application with greater latitude. Concededly, the plaintiff has come to know of the factum of transfer of his property vide sale-deed dated 26.02.2019 and the fact that the eastern wall has been demolished on 10.08.2019 subsequent to filing the suit, after which he has moved the subject application and sought incorporation of these facts and requisite relief in his plaint. 10. In considered opinion of this Court, the subsequent developments and subsequent knowledge of the fact, as aforesaid, is necessary to be taken on record, so as to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and to adjudicate the dispute completely. 11. The amendment sought by the plaintiff-respondent is not barred by any of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s. Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. M/s. Narayanaswami & Sons & Ors., (2009) AIRSCW 6644 . 12. That apart, the amendment in question is bonafide amendment and will not prejudice or effect the rights of any of the parties, much less rights of the petitioner, who is subsequent purchaser of the property. 13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, for which it is dismissed. 14. Stay petition also stands dismissed.