Arun Kumar Janah, J. - (1.)In this Rule the petitioners are challenging an order dated July 15, 1981 passed by the Munsif, Second Additional Court. Alipore, in Title Suit No. 63 of 1975 which was instituted by the opposite party 1 against the petitioners as well as the opposite parties 2 and 3 for declaration of title to certain lands and for recovery of possession thereof. The said suit was decreed by the trial court but on appeal the lower appellate court remanded the suit to the trial court on the ground that after remand the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend the plaint so that the suit may not fail on the technical ground that the plaintiff had not asked for recovery of possession in respect of a portion of the land which in the opinion of the lower appellate Court was not in possession of the plaintiff. After the suit went back to the trial court, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint on June 3, 1981 pursuant to the liberty given by the lower appellate court. The said application was allowed by the trial court on June 10, 1981 and the following order was passed:
"Ordered that the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 dated 21-3-1981 is allowed on contest. Plaintiff is directed to pay Rupees 51/- to the defendant as costs of the amedment dated 15-7-1981, in default, his petition shall stand rejected....."

(2.)Mr. Dutt, learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 raised a preliminary objection that the amendment was allowed by order No. 269 dated June, 10, 1981, but the order challenged in this Rule is order dated July, 15, 1981 which is only an order directing the order to be carried out and therefore the present application under Section 115, Civil P. C. on which this Rule has been issued is not maintainable.
(3.)There is considerable force in the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Dutt and this is sufficient to dispose of the Rule. But since the matter has been argued before me on merits. I wish to decide the Rule on merits as well