ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IS ADMITTEDLY OWNER-CUM-LANDLORD OF THE SUIT PROPERTY. HE FILED A SUIT FOR EVICTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT TENANT. THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT WERE AT A FINAL STAGE WHEN THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SOUGHT THE CORRECTION OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT PREMISES IN THE PLAINT. IT WAS ALLEGED BY THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY GIVEN IN THE RENT NOTE ITSELF WAS INCORRECT AND THE SAME DESCRIPTION WAS REPEATED IN THE PLAINT AND THERE WOULD BE COMPLICATIONS AT THE STAGE OF EXECUTION TO AVOID WHICH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT PREMISES AS GIVEN IN THE PLAINT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED.

3. THE PRAYER FOR AMENDMENT WAS OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. THE PRINCIPAL GROUND FOR OPPOSITION WAS THAT ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT HAD TAKEN THE PLEA IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ITSELF THAT THE SUIT PREMISES WERE NOT CORRECTLY DESCRIBED, YET THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PROCEEDED WITH THE TRIAL OF THE SUIT AND, DID NOT TAKE CARE TO SEEK THE AMENDMENT AT AN EARLY STAGE.

4. THE TRIAL COURT REJECTED THE PRAYER FOR AMENDMENT. THE CIVIL REVISION FILED UNDER