VERMA, J. - (1.) THESE three revision petitions have been preferred relating to the same parties and in regard to same dispute.
(2.) IN revision petition No. 1393/99, the order dated 7. 8. 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in case No. 65/97 has been challenged whereby the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff respondent for amendment of plaint has been partly allowed. In revision petition No. 371/2000, the order challenged is 16. 3. 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, wherein the application under Order 6 Rule 16 and 17 CPC on the application dated 5. 1. 2000 moved in suit No. 65/97 has been partly allowed. Revision petition No. 1234/99 has been directed against the order dated 15. 7. 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant petitioner has been partly dismissed. All the three revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner who is the defendant in the proceedings. Revision petition No. 1393/99 was necessiated because of the subsequent facts alleging that the defendant, now the petitioner, had obtained an exparte decree dated 30. 9. 1996 and the tenant Prabhu Dayal who is said to have been inducted as the plaintiff have been dispossessed on 15. 7. 1998 and, therefore, amendment was moved to the effect that she is entitled to take back the possession. It was also pleaded that the property in question was under mortgage by Radhey Shyam defendant which mortgage money was to be paid by the defendant No. 1 Kanta Devi, but the money stands paid now by the plaintiff on 31. 7. 1998 as per receipt No. 1131 dated 31. 7. 1998.
(3.) THE trial court had allowed the said amendment in the suit filed by the plaintiff because of the reason that it was the subsequent event occurred during the pendency of the civil suit. Sampati Devi had filed a suit against Durga Devi and Radhey Shyam, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for declaration and permanent injunction and in alternative redemption of mortgage dated 17. 10. 1984 alleging that she had purchased a shop bearing Municipal No. 304 (New No. 176) situated at Chowkari Purani Basti, Jaipur for a total consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/-vide registered sale deed dated 16. 11. 1995 from the defendant No. 2 Durga Devi and had also obtained actual possession. After such purchase and obtaining possession, the shop was given on lease to the tenant Prabhu Dayal. Case of Sampati Devi plaintiff was that she was bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant petitioner had malafidely got mortgage deed executed in her favour by Radhey Shyam and Radhey Shyam also executed rent note dated 1. 10. 1984 in favour of defendant petitioner Smt. Kanta Devi Agrawal. Said Kanta Devi Agrawal had filed a suit for eviction as well as arrears of rent against Radhey Shyam. Radhey Shyam did not contest the suit for eviction and exparte decree was passed on 30. 9. 1996 which was executed and Kanta Devi has taken the possession. It was alleged that the mortgaged amount was payable by Durga Devi, the earlier owner of the property and Radhey Shyam. The plaintiff who had purchased the property was entitled to safe-guard her interest and, therefore, a suit for permanent injunction and declaration was filed to the effect that they cannot be evicted in pursuance of the decree dated 30. 9. 1996. Relief for redemption was also prayed by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed for amendment of the plaint to the effect that the suit filed by the defendant petitioner for fore closure had been withdrawn by the defendant petitioner. The plaintiff had deposited the mortgage amount in the court and that Smt. Sampati Devi, the plaintiff, had been dispossessed on 15. 7. 1998 as per Courts order and after the order had been passed by the Court, Smt. Sampati Devi had also deposited the amount on her risk and even the so called arrears of rent which were being claimed by Radhey Shyam had also been deposited by the plaintiff. This amendment was opposed on the ground that it alters the cause of action and, therefore, application was not maintainable. ;