Tarun Agarwala, J.— Heard Shri Deepak Dhingra, the learned counsel duly assisted by Shri Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Tribhuwan Phartiyal, the learned counsel duly assisted by Shri Anirudh Katoch, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The defendant/applicant has filed the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure questioning the veracity and legality of the order dated 18th August, 2009 passed by the trial court allowing the application of the plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking certain amendments in the plaint.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision is that the plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction on 6th November, 2007 seeking a relief of possession of the property in question from the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed an application dated 7.12.2007 under Order 7. Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint on various grounds, viz., that the suit was barred by the limitation that the court fee paid was insufficient and that no cause of action had arisen for filing the suit. The application of the defendant was rej