1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The learned Civil Judge, Kota, vide its order dated 19.8.89, rejected the application of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. Against this order, the defendant has come in revision. Mr. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Civil Judge committed serious illegality and material irregularity and rejected the application of amendment of written statements after considering the merits of the case. He submitted that the learned Civil Judge should not have gone into the merits of the case without allowing the amendment application, framing the issue therein and allowing both the parties to lead evidence. He placed reliance on M.D. Santadas v. Union of India (AIR 1973 Delhi 96) and M.K. Krishna Rao v. Shri Gangadeswarar (AIR 1949 Mad. 433). He further argued that the case is at the initial stage and the evidence of the plaintiff is not completed as yet. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court should not have gone into the merits of the case without allowing the amendment application. The learned Civil Judge has committed illegality and materi