The amendment of pleadings is governed by Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the court must follow the procedure prescribed therein before allowing any amendments.

Bela M. Trivedi, J.

With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the revision petition is heard finally at the admission stage.

2. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No.13 challenging the order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.25/2011, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

3. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Nemi Chand Choudhary for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Vimal Choudhary for the contesting respondents No.1 & 2-plaintiffs, who has put his appearance on caveat, and perused the documents on record. During the course of arguments, the certified copies of the order sheets drawn by the trial court have been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and copy of the amended plaint has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2.

4. In the instant case, the respondents No.1 & 2- plaintiffs had initially filed the suit against the present respondents Nos. 3 to 13 (original defendants No.1 to 11) seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 19.09.2007 allegedly executed by the defendants No.1 to 4. Thereafter it appears that the respondents-plaintiffs submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleading the defendant Nos.12 to 16 i.e. the present petitioner and respondents No.14 to 17. The trial court vide the order dated 08.03.2011 allowed the said application without issuing any notice to the proposed defendants and directed the respondents-plaintiffs to amend the cause title of the suit on or before 16.03.2011. It appears that the respondents-plaintiffs again filed an application seeking permission to join the present respondents Nos.18 & 19-defendants No.17 & 18, under Order 1 Rule 10, and the trial court vide the order dated 22.02.2012 allowed the said application, and then issued notice to the said newly added defendants. The present petitioner and the respondents Nos.14 to 17 original defendants Nos.12 to 16 thereafter submitted an application seeking rejection of the plaint qua the said defendants on the ground inter alia that the suit was not maintainable, being barred by law of Limitation and that no cause of action qua the said defendants was disclosed in the plaint. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2012.

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Nemi Chand Choudhary for the petitioner that on the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs the trial court while allowing the same, had directed the plaintiffs to amend the cause title of the suit only. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there was no application nor any order was passed by the trial court permitting amendment in the body of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17. He also submitted that the amended copy of plaint with the amendments in the body of the plaint could not have been taken on record by the trial court, and that as per the original plaint, no cause of action was disclosed qua the newly added defendants Nos.12 to 16. He has also submitted that trial court had thoroughly misdirected itself by not deciding the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.

6. However, learned counsel Mr. Vimal Choudhary for the respondents No.1 & 2-plaintiffs submitted that the petitioner had not challenged the order of the trial court permitting the plaintiffs to join the defendants Nos.12 to 16 and also the order permitting to join defendants Nos.17 & 18 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. According to him, the plaintiffs was not required to file any application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 when application under Order 1 Rule 10 was granted by the court, and that the amended copy of the plaint clearly shows the cause of action against the new