JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The present petition in revision is against certain amendments prayed for by the Plaintiffs and allowed by the trial court in Title Suit No. 90 of 1954 in the court of the Munsif, Anandapur. Defendants 1 to 4 are Petitioners in the present petition. The Plaintiffs in the suit are opposite parties 1 to 27, and Defendant 5 to 41 in the suit are rest of the opposite parties in the petition. The suit, as originally laid by the Plaintiffs, was one for declaration of 34.42 acres of land in plot No. 542 as communal land and for recovery of possession of the same for enjoyment of the Plaintiffs representing themselves and other villagers the Petitioners are the landlords in respect of the said land, and Defendants 5 to 41 are lessees of different portions out of the said plot from Defendants 1 to 4. There was a first amendment petition, in which the area in suit was reduced from 34.42 acres, and this amendment was allowed without any objection. After the hearing of the suit and before judgment, a second amendment petition was filed, in which, apart from the original suit plot, some more lands were sought to be added to the claim in suit, and they were parts of plots Nos. 628, 2220 and 2354 measuring 20 acres, 15 acres and 1.66 acres respectively. This prayer for amendment was rejected and the rejection was also affirmed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 224 of 1955, on the ground that since evidence had been closed the amendment was likely to cause prejudice. After the disposal of the suit by the trial court, there was an appeal in the court of the Subordinate Judge, and the learned Subordinate Judge, after framing some new issues, remanded the suit for fresh disposal with direction that chance may be given for amending the claim, if necessary, and that the suit should be disposed of after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in respect of all the issues, old and new. It is then that the Plaintiff filed the third amendment petition in which they sought to introduce into the claim part of plot No. 628-20 acres and part of plot No. 2220-5 acres, and so are as the original plot No. 542 was concerned, they sought to reduce their claim to 8.34 acres, the totality of the areas so claimed remaining the same as claimed in the first amendment petition. The trial court has allowed this amendment, and so the present petition. 2. Mr. Ray's contenions against the amendment are that while the Plaintiffs were suing in their representative character for themselves and other villagers, no such amendment should have been allowed without fresh general notice to the villagers; that since the amendment with respect to plot Nos. 628 and 2220 had been once rejected by this court, the same should not have been allowed; and that by introducing those two plots there was change in the subject matter of the suit. The original plot No. 542 and the subsequent plot Nos. 628 and 2220 form a compact area, and the Plaintiffs, when they instituted the suit, did not take the help of any surveyor to ascertain the exact location of the land, in respect of which they were claiming their rights. It is in the stage of the trial of the suit that a survey knowing commissioner was deputed who has found out the reallocation of the disputed land, and it is why the Plaintiffs have come in for the amendment. So it is substantially evident that there is no change in the subject matter of the suit. In the second amendment petition, which was the subject-matter of the previous revision petition, a larger area had been sought to be included, and that at a time when the parties had no opportunities to adduce fresh evidence, whereas, as matters now stand, opportunities have been given to each party to adduce evidence afresh in respect of what has been sought to be claimed, and the total amount of the land claimed remains the same. What the Plaintiffs were claiming in their personal as also their representative character was not prejudicial to the claim of the villagers they represented and so no fresh general notice to the villagers was necessary. In the circumstances, there is no apparent merit in the present petition. 3. What the Plaintiffs were claiming in their personal as also their representative character was not prejudicial to the claim of the villagers they represented and so no fresh general notice to the villagers was necessary. In the circumstances, there is no apparent merit in the present petition. 3. There is however another reason for which the present petition is liable to dismissal on a preliminary ground. Though the revision petition was filed impleading all the Plaintiffs and all the lessee-Defendants, no notice was served on opposite parties 4, 5, 7 to 10, 12 to 16, 18 to 22, 29, 32 to 35, 37 to 39, 42, 44 to 46, 48, 52 and 54 to 60, and though opposite parties 23 and 61 are dead, no steps were taken for substitution in their places. By an order of the Court, the revision petition was recorded to have stood dismissed against those opposite parties, on whom no notice was served. By another order of the Court, the revision petition stood dismissed against opposite parties 23 and 61 for want of substitution. The position, as it stands, is that while the amendment allowed by the trial court in respect of those opposite parties, against whom the revision petition has been dismissed either for want of notice or for sub-situation, remains unchallenged, the merit of the amendment has only to be considered in respect of those opposite parties who are before the Court. In respect of opposite party No. 23, who is one of the Plaintiffs, the suit being in representative character, non-substitution of his legal representatives may not be material, but the Same is not the position in respect of opposite party No. 61. The amendment, remaining unchallenged for some of the opposite parties, cannot be challenged for the rest of them, as it shall lead to an inconsistent position. Mr. Ray sought to urge that the lessees having the same interest as the Petitioners, their interest is not likely to be adversely effected if they are not parties to the revision petition. The Petitioners could have moved the court to dispense with notice to the lessee opposite parties on the aforesaid ground; but after the revision petition has been expressly dismissed by the Court in respect of those lessees for default of issue of notice, the stand taken by Mr. Ray cannot be supported. Mr. The Petitioners could have moved the court to dispense with notice to the lessee opposite parties on the aforesaid ground; but after the revision petition has been expressly dismissed by the Court in respect of those lessees for default of issue of notice, the stand taken by Mr. Ray cannot be supported. Mr. Ray sought to rely on some observation in Nanni Bai and Others Vs. Gita Bai, at page 711.1 That was a case in which, while all the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant were substituted, notice was taken to some and not all of them. Their Lordships observed: Thus, the requirements of Order XXII had been fulfilled. If, subsequently, some of the heirs, thus sub-statuted are not served, the question is not one of abatement of the suit or of the appeal, but as to whether the suit or the appeal was competent in the absence of those persons. It does not appear that the absent parties were really necessary parties to the suit or the appeal in the sense that they were jointly interested with the others already on the record if any portion of the mortgaged property. In the present case, the matter did not end with non service of notice on some of the opposite parties, but the revision petition was recorded to be dismissed as against them, and so the matter does not stand in a similar position as in the case referred to. Mr. Ray sought to urge that the Court u/s 115 CPC is very wide, and it is not subject to the limitation placed in Order XXII or any other technically in doing substantial justice to the parties. It has been laid down by Sir Asutosh Mookerjee in 18 Calcutta Law Journal 141, 2 "The principle recognized in Rule 3 of Order XXII of the CPC is applicable not only to suits, but also to proceedings in revision." No doubt, in cases which are shocking to conscience, the court may, at its own instance, proceed to interfere in a matter under its revisional jurisdiction though there might not have been strict adherence to technicalities but that does not authorise the Court to pass an order without notice to parties, who might be affected by the Court's order, and far less in a case where the Court has already passed its orders dismissing the revision petition against some of such parties. 4. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee rupees thirty two only. Final Result : Dismissed