WPMS 1776/2006 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri M.S. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. Office report indicates that respondent nos. 2 to 5 have been served. No one appears on their behalf. The petitioner is the plaintiff and filed a suit for prohibitory injunction. During the pendency of the suit, it is alleged that the defendant raised certain construction on the property in question and accordingly, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint incorporating the plea of the mandatory injunction. This application was allowed, against which, the defendant preferred a revision under Section 115 C.P.C., which was allowed. The impugned order indicates that the revisional court allowed the revision on the ground that the trial court did not consider the map annexed with the amendment application. The Court is of the opinion that if the revisional court was of the opinion that the trial court had not considered the map in question, it ought to have remanded the matter back to the trial court instead of rejecting the amendment application altogether. In the light of the aforesaid, the revisional order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The trial court’s order is also set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to re-decide the amendment application afresh after hearing all the parties. The writ petition is allowed. Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 27-12-2011 SP