1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit is for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing or otherwise interfering with the B schedule property. That suit was decreed exparte and subsequently the exparte decree was set aside. In the written statement it was contended that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 574 of 1984 for impleading additional defendants 3 and 4, That application was allowed after hearing the parties. However it would appear that the office insisted that the plaintiff should carry out the amendment in the original plaint. Since the plaintiff did not carry out the amendment, the application for impleading was dismissed. Subsequently he filed I. A. No. 2337 of 1984 to review that order and it was also dismissed. This C.R.P. is filed against the abovesaid order.

2. The impleading petition is filed under Order I R.10 C.P.C. and it cannot be treated as a petition for amendment under Order VI R.17 C.P.C. If an amendment of the pleadings under Order VI R.17 is allowed by a court, the party is bound to carry out the amendment under R.18 of that Order. But it is specifically provided in