JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - It is a plaintiff's petition, who had preferred this writ petition, being aggrieved, as against the impugned judgment of 13.12.2013, which was rendered by the court of Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, in Civil Revision No.01 of 2006. As a consequence of the impugned judgment, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, the revision, which was preferred by the revisionists has been allowed and as a consequence thereto, the amendment preferred by the defendants/respondents was also allowed, permitting them for bringing about the changes in the pleadings, which were raised by them in the written statement. As against these orders, there are three fold arguments, which has been extended by the counsel for the petitioners to assail the impugned revisional court's order allowing the amendment application:-

(i) That the defendants/respondents in the amendment application, which was preferred by them, had submitted that their tenancy was flowing from some other person i.e. other than the petitioners. Hence, he submits that this changed stand taken by the defendants/respondents, in the written statement by virtue of the amendment, where the