1. SINCE the abovementioned three revisional applications are interrelated to each other, all these three revisional applications were heard analogously. The plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was partly allowed and partly rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide Order No.30 dated 15th February, 2007. Part of the order by which the plaintiffs prayer for amendment of plaint was disallowed by the learned Trial Judge is the subject matter of challenge in the civil revisional application being C.O. No.228 of 2008 which was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein. The part of the order by which the plaintiffs prayer for amendment of plaint was partly allowed is the subject matter of challenge in the civil revisional application being C.O. No.464 of 2008 which was filed by the defendant. The other revisional application being C.O. No.463 of 2008 is directed against an order being No.37 dated 29th January, 2008 by which the plaintiffs prayer for addition of party was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. The said revisional application was filed by the defendant. Let me first of all consider the merit of the revisional applications being C.O. No.228 of 2008 and C.O. No