JUDGMENT Sinha and Mathur, JJ. - This is an application in revision u/s 115 of the Coda of CPC and is directed against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Moradabad by which be refused the amendment of a plaint. The facts are briefly these: On December 26, 1943, the first fifteen Defendants a.greed to sell their share in certain shops to the Plaintiff for a sum of Re. 8,000. Rs. 500 was paid at the time of the agreement and the balance of Rs. 7,500, was to be paid at the time of registration. It appeals that the agreement fell through with the result that the Plaintiffs brought a suit for specific performance of the contract against the first fifteen Defendants, In paragraph four of the plaint they, however, said that a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 1,500 was secured from them by the first fifteen Defendants in favour of their friend, one Lala Brij Kishore. It was without consideration and was secured only to ensure that the Plaintiffs did not resile from the contract. 2. Some of the Defendants had entered defence when the Plaintiffs peresented an application for amendment of the plaint. They sought permission to implead Brij Kishore. There was also a prayer for amending the relief consequent upon the first prayer being granted. 3. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application. It is against this order that present application in revision is directed. 4. A preliminary objection has been taken to the heading of the application, on the ground that an order refusing an amonment is not revisable, as was held in Suraj Pali v. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U. P. l936 A w R 776 F.B. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicants endeavours to meat this position by relying upon the following observations in the full Bench: Cases where the amendment comes under some other order of the Code, for example, the addition or substitution of parties, or striking off a pleading may amount to a case decided. 6. It is argued that the prayer for amendment of the relief really followed the prayer to implead Brij Kishore. It, by itself, could mean or achieve nothing. 7. 6. It is argued that the prayer for amendment of the relief really followed the prayer to implead Brij Kishore. It, by itself, could mean or achieve nothing. 7. The learned Counsel for the opposite-party, however, argues that the true object of the application was the amendment of the relief and that prayer could not, in view of the decision in the Full Bench, be granted. 8. This contention, though plausible, is not correct. It is true that the Plaintiffs could not achieve their purpose by merely having Brij Kishore on the record It was necessary that the relief should also be amended. But the amendment of the relief was, in our opinion, the logical corollary of the addition of Brij Kishore as a party. The learned Counsel for the opposite party is not right in his contention that the true purpose was not the presence of Brij Kishord as a party, but the amendment of the relief. We are of opinion that the two are inextricably linked together and, in logical sequence, the presence of Brij Kishore as a party comes first Once he is on the record, the other relief was merely a sequal to it. 9. The merits are, at least so far as the application in revision is concerned, entirely with the applicants. It may be that the promissory note is a part and parcel of the contract, for the enforcement of which the suit has been brought and is without consideration. It may equally be that it is an independent and genuine transaction. But it is desirable consistently with the policy of the Legislature to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, that both the transactions should be tried together. 10. We, therefore, allow this application in revision, set aside the order of the Court below and grant the application for amendment presented on the 27th of January, 1945. The parties shall bear their own costs in both the Courts.