( 1 ) THE petitioner, herein, has preferred this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, challenging the order dated 7. 1. 1989 recorded by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) at Mehsana below Ex. 68 in Special Civil Suit No. 29/1988 under which the learned trial Judge dismissed the said application of the present petitioner - original plaintiff seeking amendment in plaint under Order-6 Rule-17 read with Order-1 Rule-10 as well as under Section 151 of the said Code.

( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner, herein, preferred the aforesaid Civil Suit for specific performance of an agreement of purchase of a property from the respondents No. 1 to 4 and 7. During the pendency of the said suit, respondents No. 6 and 8, herein, being the defendants in the aforesaid Civil Suit submitted an application contending that since the suit has been filed by the proposed Cooperative Society, it is not maintainable. It seems that with a view to meet with the said contention of respondents No. 6 and 8, the petitioner, herein, submitted an application at Ex. 68 before the trial Court in the aforesaid Civil Suit for amending the plaint.

( 3 ) IN the said application the petitioner, herein, stated that in the cause title of the plaint the plaintiff has been shown as;"vijay Park Cooperative Housing Society, (proposed) at Siddhpurs Chief Promoter Dasharathlal Ambalal Patel. THE petitioner contended that the concerned respondents have not filed Written Statement but they have submitted an application stating that the suit as filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is also contended by the petitioner that though the agreement has been executed in favour of the petitioner - original plaintiff, however, it was intended that the registered Sale Deed may be executed in favour of the proposed Cooperative Society in future and, therefore, the name of the proposed Cooperative Society has been mentioned in the agreement to sell and, therefore, the description of the plaintiff - petitioner, herein, has been so shown in the cause title of the plaint. That in fact, the consideration of the agreement to sell has been paid by the petitioner himself and an agreement to sell has also been effected by the petitioner - plaintiff, in his individual capacity. Therefore, with a view to avoid any technical defect as indicated in the aforesaid application of respondents No. 6 and 8, the petitioner desired to amend the plaint so as to delete the words from the cause tile;"vijay Park Cooperative Housing Society, Siddhpur. (proposed)s Chief Promoter.

( 4 ) THE petitioner also requested the trial Court by the said application for permitting the said amendment in the cause title as well as in the verification of the plaint at the foot thereof.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned advocates for the parties the learned trial Judge had passed a short order as follows;"rejected because original suit has been filed by proposed unregistered society and by this amendment as new man intends to become plaintiff. "

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Judge, the petitioner, herein, has preferred this Civil Revision Application before this Court. It has been mainly contended here that the order in question cannot be treated to be an order within the provisions made in Civil Procedure Code, for that purpose and, therefore, the order cannot be treated to be legal. It is further contended that it is simply a question of misdescription in the cause title of the plaint and, therefore, ordinarily such an amendment ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the above position the order, in question is illegal and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the present Civil Revision Application may be allowed and the order impugned in this Civil Revision Application may be quashed and set aside and the aforesaid application of