The inherent power of the court under Section 151 CPC can be invoked to enable the court to pass such orders for the ends of justice as may be necessary considering the rights conferred upon the parties by substantive law.

1. - The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 115 CPC against the order dated 28.11.1997 of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 3/97 whereby the learned District Judge allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner-plaintiff u/O. 6 R. 17 on payment of cost of Rs. 100/,

2. The non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a compromise decree passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Misc. Case no. 399/96 on 6.1.1997 under section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. The above decree was passed after observing all the legal requirements and formalities and after being satisfied with the truthfulness of the statements of both the parties. The non-petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration that the decree be cancelled. The petitioner resisted the above suit and filed reply and inter alia pleaded that the suit as filed by the non-petitioner is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in 0.23 R. 3-A CPC. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were struck on 3.5.1997 and the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff,non-petitioner. On 11.10.1997, the non-petitioner moved an application u/O. 6 R. 17 CPC seeking amendment in the pleading. It was stated in the application that the plaintiff has sought cancellation of the decree passed on 6.1.1997 on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff, in view of the provisions contained in 0. 23 R. 3-A CPC and the judgments of various Courts delivered in pursuance .of the above provisions thought it proper to seek amendment by inserting Section 151 CPC because in the opinion of the plaintiff, even if the suit of the plaintiff may not be maintainable, the desired relief can be conferred by the Court under the inherent power conferred by Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff could not insert Section 151 CPC in the suit. The above omission is bona fide and not intentional. The plaintiff, therefore, sought that Section 151 CPC be added. He also sought the amendment that with the word "plaintiff" the word "petitioner" be added. The application was vehemently contested by the defendant-petitioner on the / ground that such amendment cannot be allowed inasmuch as the suit filed by the plaintiff is not obviously maintainable in view of the provisions contained in 0. 23 R. 3-A CPC. Faced with dilemma, the plaintiff is seeking the insertion of Section 151 CPC. The amendment cannot be allowed. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge, by the impugned which is a short one, has allowed the same.

3. I have heard Shri S.D. Vyas appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri K.N. Joshi appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner.

4. Shri Vyis vehemently assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned District Judge, while passing the above order, did not assign any reason why the proposed amendments were allowed. Every judicial order must contain reasons for its decision. Be that as it may, the amendments sought by the plaintiff-non-petitioner could not have been allowed because the suit filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner is not obviously maintainable in view of the provision contained in 0. 23 R. 3-A CPC. The defendant-petitioner challenged the maintainability of the suit filed by the non-petitioner on this ground. When the plaintiff realised the above legal position, the proposed amendments were sought. Such an amendment Cannot be allowed in the above suit because it will effect the extinguishment of the suit itself. The relief under section 151 CPC can only be sought in that suit only. On separate application or suit invoking inherent power of the Court is maintainable. By allowing the above amendment, the Court has armed the plaintiff to agitate the plea of inherent power in the above suit which is legally not sustainable. Shri Vyas has relied on Manoharlal Chopra v. Seith Heeralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 , Raja Soap Factory v. S.P. Shanta Raj & Ors.,