( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed by the original defendent against the plaintiffs-opponents under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The opponents filed a Civil Suit No. 31 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Talaja for recovery of possession of suit land from the petitioner. According to them they are the owners of the suit land and are in possession of it. The petitioner obstructs their possession and has made an application in the Mamlatdars Court to have it mutated to her name claiming the land to be hers.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a written statement on 24th July 1967 and denied the claim of the opponents and challenged the maintainability of the suit.

( 3 ) ON 9th February 1968 by an application Ex. 21 she sought permission for an amendment of a written statement. By that application she wanted to take up three further contentions in regard to maintainability of the suit. One of them was that there was a previous suit between the parties and due to the decision given In that suit the suit was barred by res judicata. Another contention was that the suit being a suit for taking possession of the suit land on the ground of ownership the market value of the land being over 10 0 rupees at the date of the suit the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The alternative contention that was to be taken up was that the suit was barred by limitation. Another alternative contention was about adverse possession.

( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge Junior Division Talaja Mr. R. H. Nanavati rejected this application on the ground that the suit was filed on 24th July 1967 and there was absolutely nothing to prevent the defendant from taking up all the contentions that she now proposes to take. Merely because the proposed contentions are important they cannot now be permitted to be taken up. All the proposed contentions are new. He therefore does not see any reason to allow that application at that stage. On these grounds the application has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge. This is one of the impugned orders which is assailed in this revision application by the petitioner. Another application Ex. 22 was given stating that the value of the subject-matter being over Rs. 10 0 the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. She therefore prayed that before hearing of the suit commenced Mamlatdar or any other officer be appointed as a commissioner for making the valuation of the land which according to the petitioner can be valued at Rs. 35 0 That application was also rejected stating that the applicant may lead evidence herself to substantiate her contention if permissible. The petitioner has come in revision against that older also.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate Mr. Parikh appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly contended that the learned Civil Judge had committed an illegality by ignoring the provisions of law and thereby had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. He urged that before the recording of evidence commenced the petitioner had sought permission to allow her to amend the written statement. The contentions which the petitioner intended to take up by that amendment were very material contentions and most of them were contentions of law which would go to the root of the case if the petitioner succeeded in showing the soundness of those contentions. He conceded to the position that those contentions were new contentions. The amendment application which sought for a permission to take up those contentions cannot be rejected on the aforesaid grounds. These were the additional grounds which the petitioner wanted to urge in support of her say that the suit was not maintainable as well as entertainable and should be dismissed. She was out making out any new case. These were the only new grounds to support her case that the suit was not maintainable and the suit should be dismissed on that ground.

( 6 ) HE also invited any attention to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Ci