ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.

1. Rule. Ms. Medha N. Pandya, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2013, passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Rajula (the District Court for short), in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2012, whereby the order dated 19.07.2012, passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Jafrabad, rejecting the application at Ex.40, preferred by the respondent (plaintiff) under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code for short), has been quashed and set aside.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary for the decision of the petition are that the respondent instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 148 of 2010, against the petitioner, for declaration and injunction. The prayers made by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit, inter alia, are that the registered Sale Deed No. 1110 dated 15.12.2000, in respect of the suit land as described in Paragraph 2 of the memorandum of the petition, be declared void and invalid and may be cancelled. The respondent-plaintiff also preferred an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code for grant of injunction, which came to be rejected. The appeal filed against the rejection of the said application was dismissed by the District Court. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff preferred an application at Ex.40 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, for amendment of the plaint. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.07.2012, after hearing the parties at length. The respondent preferred the abovementioned appeal against the order passed by the Trial Court, which has been allowed by the District Court by passing the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Though a perusal of the memorandum of the petition discloses that the petitioner has taken various grounds on the merits of the case in support of his challenge to the impugned order, however, while making submissions before this Court, Mr. B.D. Karia, learned advocate for the petitioner, has focussed only on one ground which, according to him, is decisive and would render the other grounds unnecessary.

5. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the District Court deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the District Court has erred in law in entertaining the appeal preferred by the respondent, against an order passed in an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, as there is no provision in the Code for filing an appeal against an order in an application under Order 6 Rule 17. It is submitted that not only has the District Court entertained the appeal, it has also proceeded to allow it. It is contended that when the appeal, itself, is not maintainable, as per the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code, any order passed on such appeal is one without jurisdiction, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Ms. Medha N. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent, after going through the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code, submits that the Court may pass an appropriate order.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record.

8. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court reveals that the objection raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner before this Court does not appear to have been raised before the District Court. Before that Court, submissions appear to have been made on the merits of the case by the learned counsel for the respective parties. Th