1. By this common order, Civil Revisions No. 275/2001, 276/2001 and 277/2001 are being decided. In all the three revisions the plaintiff-applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 22.2.2001, passed by the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Indore, in Regular Civil Suit No. 34-A/2000, whereby rejecting his three applications (two u/o 6 R. 17 of the CPC, for amendment in the plaint and one u/s 80 (2) of the CPC for dispensing with service of notice on the State Government).

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of all the aforesaid revisions are that one plaintiff's suit against the respondents for declaration and injunction is pending before the trial Court. In the suit the plaintiff has claimed ownership over the property belonging to Hansdas Math and his case is that the property of the Math has been described in the schedule, which is also part of the plaint. Initially the plaintiff has made State as formal party and has not claimed any relief against it, but, thereafter, the State has filed their effective written statement, challenging the case of the plaintiff and specifically denied the schedule of property and also the fact that the aforesaid property belongs to Hansdas Math. In nut shell the case of the State Government is that the aforesaid property belongs to one Ranchhod Mandir, which is a public temple.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, which was being mainly contested by the respondent No.1 Yajatradas, the trial Court by order dated 14.11.1992 granted an injunction and also accepted right of respondent No. 1 of performing Puja and Archana. On 8.12.2000 the plaintiff-applicant filed two applications one u/o 6 R. 17 and S. 151 CPC, for amendment in the plaint and another u/s 80 (2) CPC, for dispensing with service of notice on the State. On 13.12.2000, he has also filed an application u/o 6 R. 17 and S. 151, CPC for amendment in the plaint. The contention of the plaintiff is that the order passed by the Collector on 20.7.1994 came to his knowledge on 20.7.2000, because the same is an exparte order, therefore, alongwith the pleadings he claimed amendment in the prayer clause also, seeking declaratory relief that the aforesaid order of the Collector dated 20.7.1994, by which the Collector allowed Yajatradas to function as Pujari and also manager of Ranch hod Mandir, be declared as null and void and for getting the relief against the respondent-State he has also filed another application under section 80 (2), CPC for dispensing with service of notice. Again, on 13.2.2000 by another application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, challenged another order of Collector, dated 12.9.2000, passed in appeal, confirming the order of SDO and also sought permission to amend the relief clause and declaration that the said order dated 12.9.2000 be also declared illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court has rejected all the three applications of the plaintiff-applicant by a common order against which the aforesaid three separate revisions have been preferred.

4. The submission of Shri Rege, learned counsel for the applicant is that the trial Court has wrongly and illegally rejected the amendment applications as also the application u/s 80 (2) of the CPC. His further submission is that the trial. Court has not considered the nature of the suit, which is for declaration and injunction. The trial Court has also not considered the written statement• filed by the respondent-State. Though, the State Government is a formal party, but effectively contesting the suit and has set-up their own claim in the property of the Math as well as in the property of Ranchhod temple, therefore, his forceful submission is that now the State Government is not a formal party in the suit. His further submission was that the Court below has also not considered the issues which have been framed for the disposal of the suit. It was, then, submitted that the trial Court has already framed issues relating to res judicata, lim