the petitioner complaining that the defendants highhandediy dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit scheduie property, had tiled an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint and for recovery of the possession of the suit scheduled property and that application was allowed by the learned trial Judge. Thereaderwards, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing of additional issues relating to entitlement of the plaintiff to recover possession of the suit schedule property and for meene protits and that application has been rejected by the order impugned in this writ petition. med under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned trial Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned trial Judge having allowed the application of the petitioner-plaintiff tiled under Order 6 Rule 17 of CFC, ought to have seen that the issues sough to be added as additional issues are relevant issues to be tried in order to decide the suit tinally and effectively. In that view of the matter, l allow the writ petition, set aside the order of the learned trial Judge and allow the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC as prayed for. No costs. i 8w. i Ki} Chli’f Justicé ‘i , i §qubu t