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. 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 sui