JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — The petitioners in this writ application have seek to challenge the order dated 27.02.1999 passed by the Dis¬trict Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, Balasore in Civil Revision No.74 of 1997 whereby the learned District Judge has set aside the order dated 27.10.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Balasore allowing an application filed under Order 6, Rule-17 CPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that late Surendra Prasad Choudhury, as plaintiff, had filed O.S. No.680 of 1990-I in the Court of the Munsif, Balasore for correction of record of rights. Subsequently, in view of the observations made by the District Judge in his judgment dated 9.8.1996 passed in Misc. Appeal No.37 of 1993, the plaintiff filed an application in the said suit under Order 6, Rule-17 CPC for amendment of the plaint to implead his wife Padmabati as a co-plaintiff. On consideration of the objections raised by the defendants to the said applica¬tion under Order 6, Rule 17, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Balasore allowed the said application by his order dated 27.10.1997. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants carried a revision to the District Judge, Balasore in Civil Revision No.74 of 1997 which came to be disposed of by the order dated 27.2.1999, inter alia, allowing the said revision and quashing the order dated 27.10.1997 passed by the Civil Judge.

3. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the revisional order dated 27.2.1999, submits that basically late Surendra Prasad Choudhury filed the suit, as manifest from the heading of the plaint, for correction of record of rights and in the prayer contained in the plaint, the plain¬tiff had made a further prayer for delivery of possession of the suit land.

4. The suit lands in Schedules- A,B and C are clearly described in the sketch map as per Scheduled-D to the plaint. In so far as Lot No.1 to Schedule-A is concerned, the said land pertains to Khata No.88, Plot No.985 Ac.0.011 decimals and Lot No.2 contains an area of Ac.0.15 decimals in Plot No.991 under Khata No.756.

The amendment sought for by the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the amendment shall change the nature and character of the suit. Mr. Mahakud, learned counsel for the Opp.party No.6-defendant submits that by way of amend¬ment, the plaintiff sought for introducing his wife-Padmabati Choudhury as Plaintiff No.2 which amounts to filing of the suit by two persons and not one person.

5. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a “mis-description of the names” of the plaintiff for which the amendment was sought for, inasmuch as, the property in Lot No.1 in Schedule-A belongs to the wife of the plaintiff i.e. Padmabati Choudhury and although the land has been mentioned in the Schedule-A to the suit, the name of Padmabati was not described in the plaint for which the plaintiff sought for an amendment. According to Mr. Panigrahi, the amendment sought for was only for the purpose of correction of mistakes in the plaint and it does not change the nature and character of the suit in any manner and the relief sought for.

Mr. Panigrahi further submits that during the pendency of the present writ application, said Surendra Prasad Choudhury has passed away and in his place, his wife and children have been substituted and therefore, since Padmabati has now been impleaded as a party as the legal heir of late husband, no objection for impleading her as co-plaintiff should be entertained.

6. Mr. Mahakud, learned counsel for Opp.party No.6 placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pir¬gonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363, in particular Paragraphs-7,8 and 9 thereof, submits that this Court should not interfere with the order passed in the civil revision since late S.P. Choudhury sought to implead his wife-Padmabati by way of amendment at a time beyond the period of three years pro