madan mohan prasad, J.

1. There two applications in revision arise out of the same case1 and common circumstance.

2. It appears that the plaintiffs-opposite party filed a suit against the chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the board) and some of its officers for an injunction against them from disconnecting the supply of electrical energy and from charging at the maximum guaranteed rate for the consumption of such electrical energy.

3. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement. One of the objections taken was that the suit was not maintainable because it should have been filed against the Board which is a body corporate and could sue and be sued in its own name. The matter was fixed up for hearing on a particular date. On that very date, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint by deleting the word chairman in the description of the first defendant. A copy of the aforesaid petition was given to the defendants. Both sides were heard and an order was passed allowing the amendment. It may be s tated that it appears that the taking of the matter of amendment on the aforesaid date and the passing of the or