MANMOHAN SARIN ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2-6-1995, by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the petitioner s application one under Order VI Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint and second application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for deletion of petitioner No. 2 from the array of defendants in Suit titled Sucheta Jain Vs. Nahar Silk Mills And Another. ( 2 ) AS regards the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, it is the petitioner s submission that had the Court permitted production of letter dated 12-1-1993, there would have been no necessity to move the application, since the basic plea of novation was also there in the written statement. The sole purpose of the amendment is to plead and bring on record the letter dated 12-1-1993. Vide a separate detailed order, the revision petition bearing No. 631 of 1995 challenging the order rejecting the petitioner s application under Order XVIII Rule 17 A Civil Procedure Code for being permitted to produce the letter of 12-l-1993, has been dismissed. ( 3 ) THE amendment application accordingly must also fail as it would serve no purpoose. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to bring on record and prove the letter by amending the written statement, once the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 A Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has also assailed the impugned order in so far as it rejects the petitioners application under order I rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for deletion of petitioner No. 2 from the array of defendants. While it is true that no material allegation has been made against petitioner No. 2 with regard to suit amount to make him personally liable yet the petitioner No. 2 has been found to be a proper party to the suit. The case of the respondent is that petitioner No. 1 has incurred a substantial amount of Rs. 3. 6 lacs on the construction of the shed, which is built on the land allotted to petitioner No. 2. The respondent had therefore sought a decree of permanent injunction against both the petitioners from alienating or parting with possession of the said shed, with a view to secure the recovery of the decretal amount. 3. 6 lacs on the construction of the shed, which is built on the land allotted to petitioner No. 2. The respondent had therefore sought a decree of permanent injunction against both the petitioners from alienating or parting with possession of the said shed, with a view to secure the recovery of the decretal amount. In these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner No. 2 is not a proper party. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or error in the exercise of jurisdiction so as to warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE petition has no merit and is dismissed.