V.S. Kokje, J.

1. Heard Shri N.K. Patni, for the applicant and Shri R.C. Maheshwari for the non-applicant.

2. This revision application challenges the order dated 10-8-1991 passed by the Xth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore allowing an amendment in the plaint. The main contention of Shri Patni, learned counsel for the applicant is that the suit was closed for judgment at the time the plaintiff moved an application for amendment. According to Shri Patni when once the case was closed for judgment, no further application could be moved in the case. He relied heavily upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjunsingh v. Mohindrakumar and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 993. Shri R.C. Maheshwari learned counsel for the non-applicant tried to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjunsingh's case (supra) by contending that, that case applied only to an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') being filed after the case was closed for judgment. According to him there is a difference in the provisions of Order 9 and Order 6 of the Code. He further contended that Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code permitted an amendment appl