JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been filed against the order dated 11.4.1991, passed by Additional District Judge, Jhalawar, in Civil Suit No. 17/1989, by which the said Court framed additional issues and directed the parties to submit list of witnesses. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that when the suit was fixed for arguments, the plaintiff non-petitioner submitted an application for amendment of the plaint. The trial court allowed the application for amendment of plaint vide its order dated 29.3.90, on this undertaking of the plaintiff that he will not lead any further evidence. Later on the plaintiff filed amended plaint. The Court directed that the case be listed on 12.4.1990 for amendment of issues and after hearing arguments, the learned Additional District Judge, vide his order dated 12.4.91, amended the issues and directed the parties to submit list of witnesses. This order has been challenged in this revision by the defendant petitioners. 3. Counsel for the defendant-petitioners argued that the amendment was allowed with this undertaking that the plaintiff will not lead any evidence. Now the trial court has allowed the plaintiff to lead-evidence. The order of the trial court for amending the issues and asking the parties to submit list of witnesses and then 'to produce witnesses is contrary to the order dated 29.3.90. He argued that the order dated 29.3.90, is res judicata and as such the Court was not justified in amending the issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead fresh evidence. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner argued that there is no irregularity and illegality in the order passed by the trial court and as such the revision is not maintainable. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the trial court was not justified in going beyond the order dated 29.3.90. The amendment was allowed with this undertaking given by the counsel for the plaintiff that he will not lead any evidence. By directing the parties to submit list of their witnesses and to produce the witnesses amounts to going by beyond the order dated 29.3.1990. In my view, the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and in case the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice. 6. By directing the parties to submit list of their witnesses and to produce the witnesses amounts to going by beyond the order dated 29.3.1990. In my view, the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and in case the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice. 6. Consequently, I allow the revision, set-aside the order dated 11.4.1991, and direct the lower court to decide the suit as early as possible. *******