JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order of the Munsif Jaipur City (East) Dated 1.9.1977. 2. As suit was filed against the petitioner Tilak Raj for arrears of rent and eviction by one Hukram Chand on the ground of default. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 13.10.1968. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 29.11.1968. While this application was pending, the plaintiff Hukam Chand died on 16.2.1970. Tilak Raj himself on 27.4.70 applied that his widow and daughters should be substituted in place of deceased Hukam Chand. The widow Mst. Lalli Devi made an application on 2.5.1970 that on account of a will made in her favour by the deceased she was the successor of the deceased Hukam Chand and should be substituted in his place. The learned Munsif held an enquiry and by his order dated 16.5.73 directed that the name of Mst. Lalli Devi shall be substituted in place of Hukam Chand both in the application for setting aside the decree and also in the suit. Therefore, on 5.4.1974 the learned Munsif dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The defendant filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge Jaipur City on 29.7.75. But a revision against that order was allowed by this Court on 1.2.1975 and the case was remanded to the Munsif for retrial. 3. During the course of re-trial Mst. Lalli Devi filed an amended plaint on 1.8.77. On 27.8.77 the defendant sought time to file the written statement and the case was adjourned to 1.9.77. On that date, the defendant instead of filing the written statement, made an application that the amended plaint was filed without any leave of the court. The suit had abated because no substitution of the legal representative took place in accordance with Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Munsif by his order of the same date rejected this application of the defendant forthwith. The defendant again sought time of file written statement. The learned Munsif granted adjournment upon payment of Rs. 50/- as costs and adjourned the case for filing of the written statement to the next day. But at 4.45 p.m. the defendant filed the written statement and the case was adjourned to 15.9.1977. 4. The defendant again sought time of file written statement. The learned Munsif granted adjournment upon payment of Rs. 50/- as costs and adjourned the case for filing of the written statement to the next day. But at 4.45 p.m. the defendant filed the written statement and the case was adjourned to 15.9.1977. 4. The defendant petitioner has filed this revision petition against this order dated 1.9.1977. It is contended on his behalf that the order of the learned Munsif is not a speaking order, contains no reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner and deserves to be quashed on that ground alone if nothing else. It was then submitted that the application for substitution should have been made in the suit and not in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The amended plaint was filed without any orders from the court. No amendment of the pleadings is Permissible without an order of the court. It was pointed out that the proceedings of the learned Munsif show that the direrent was compelled to file the written statement upon duress on payment of costs. Even now the cause title has not been amended. 5. All these objections taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner do into raise any question of jurisdiction. It is true that the order of the learned Munsif is not made in the manner in which judicial order are made but in view of the facts stated above the summary dismissal of the application was justified. The direction of substitute Mst. Lalli Devi in place of Hukam Chand could be made only in the proceedings pending before the Munsif and if she were to wait to make an application for decision of the restoration application and retrial of the suit, then perhaps her application would have become time barred. As a matter of fact there was no need for filing of an amended plaint and only an amendment in the cause title was sufficient and the suit could proceed. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if an amended plaint was filed. 6. I, therefore, see no force in the revision petition and it is hereby missed summarily. The record shall be returned.Revision dismissed. *******