JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-defendant No. 1 has filed this petition under section 115 Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 11.9.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Original Case No. 274 of 1995 whereby the application filed under Order VI, Rule 16 Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner-defendant No. 1 was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for redemption of mortgage - property against defendant late Dhanraj. During the pendency of the suit, Dhanraj expired on 11.3.1993 and the petitioner was brought on record as his legal representative. It appears that defendant No. 2 Shyam Lal (non-petitioner No. 2) moved an application purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code in the said suit for impleading him as party to the above suit on the ground that he was admitted as tenant by the plaintiff and her husband on 19.11.1994 prior to the factum of mortgage. He is, therefore, protracted by the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control & Eviction) Act, 1950. The learned trial Court considered the application of Shyam Lal and allowed the same vide order dated 29.4.1995. No further order was passed by the learned trial Court while allowing the above application. 3. The petitioner has stated that normally the plaintiff was only entitled to file the amended cause title but instead of that, he made substantial amendments in the plaint by adding Paras 6-A to 13. The petitioner objected to the substantial amendments in the plaint by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not obtain any permission from the Court under Order VI, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code. A prayer was, therefore, made the amendments made in the plaint without permission of the Court be struck down as per the provisions of Order VI, Rule 16 Civil Procedure Code. 4. The application filed by the defendant-petitioner was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that above amendments were necessitated on account of the addition of Shyam Lal as defendant No. 2 in the above suit. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application of the petitioner by the impugned order. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners. 7. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application of the petitioner by the impugned order. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the amendments in pleadings is governed by the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code and when the application of defendant Shyam Lal was allowed, it was obligatory duty of the plaintiff to have moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code seeking permissionof the Court for making necessary amendments in the plaint consequent upon the addition Shyam Lal as defendant No. 2. Without obtaining such a permission, the plaintiff could not have suo motu amended the plaint. The learned trial Court, therefore, committed an error apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 16 Civil Procedure Code challenging the above amendments. The Court has ample power to strike down the amendments not allowed by the Court under Order VI, Rule 16 Civil Procedure Code. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner took shelter of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10(4) Civil Procedure Code Order 1, Rule 10(4) provides, that where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. He, therefore, submitted that by virtue of Order 1, Rule 10(4) Civil Procedure Code the plaintiff was entitled to amend the plaint on account of addition of defendant No. 2 in the above suit. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. In my opinion, the controversy involved in this case in squarely covered by the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10(4) Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under:- "Order 1, Rule 10(4) Civil Procedure Code. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. In my opinion, the controversy involved in this case in squarely covered by the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10(4) Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under:- "Order 1, Rule 10(4) Civil Procedure Code. Where a defendant is added the plaint shall unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and if the Court thinks fit on the original defendant." There is no dispute as regards the facts of the case. When the Court accorded permission to Shyam Lal for being impleaded as defendant, it became necessary for the plaintiff to amend his pleading accordingly and the Court was not required specifically to direct the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The plaintiff could act in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 1, Rule 10(4) Civil Procedure Code. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 10(4) Civil Procedure recognises the statutory right of the plaintiff to amend the plaint in such a manner, as may be necessary, where a new defendant is added. This right can only be curtailed when the Court directs otherwise. The interest of the other party is also saved by providing a provision that the Court may issue amended copy of the summons and the plaintiff to the original defendant. In fact, after the3 addition of new defendant in the plaint, the suit commences afresh and the initial proceedings are again taken. 10. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff was within his jurisdiction to amend the plaint as it became necessary after the addition of defendant No. 2 Shyam Lal as defendant in the suit. 11. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******