ORDER: The petitioner herein filed I..A./Nos.98, 99 and 106,24 and 30 of 1996 in C.M.A.No.47 of 1995 on the file of the District Court, Dindigul Anna District and by a common order dated 29.10.1996, the District Court allowed the applications I.A.Nos.24 and 30 of 1996 while dismissing I.A.Nos.98,99 and 196 of 1996. Being aggrieved by the rejection of l.A.Nos.98,99 and 106 of 1996, the present revisions have been preferred. 2. The petitioner herein instituted the suit O.S.No.1405 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dindigul for relief of permanent in- junction forbearing the respondent from putting up any construction on the suit property. The said suit is pending on the file of the trial Court. Pending the suit the petitioner filed I.A.No.1604 of 1994 for the relief of interim injunction. After, contest, the trial Court dismissed the injunction application. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the injunction application, the petitioner preferred C.M.A.No.47 of 1995 on the file of the District Court, Dindigul Anna District. 3. Pending the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.98 of 1996 seeking to amend the description of property in the said plaint i.e. in O.S.No.1405 of 1994 and the particulars of amendment reads thus: “In the description of property given in the plaint of appeal, after the words, “O.61 cents” delete the word “northern” and substitute it with “southern” and after the word 0.30 1/2 cents“, add the following: which has not been subdivided as S.No.l55/5A2”. The petition also filed l.A.No.99 of 1996 seeking for amendment in the injunction application with respect to the description of the property for which the injunction was applied for before the trial Court. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.106 of 1996 to amend the description of the property in the civil miscellaneous appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of these application it has been stated that the mistake was accidental, and that the description of the property has to be amended correctly in the suit plaint, in the injunction application, as well as in the appeal and in the additional injunction application pending the appeal. According to the petitioner, the said mistake was noted recently and hence the application for amendment. According to the petitioner, the said mistake was noted recently and hence the application for amendment. The petitioner had also pointed out that the trial court dismissed the injunction application as there is a discrepancy in the description of the property in the sale agreement as well as in the sale deed and that the amendment has to be effected as the mistake in the description is a bona fide mistake. All the applications filed under O.6 , Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Sec.151 of the Civil Procedure Code were resisted by the respondent herein and the District Judge, by a common order dated 29.10.1996 dismissed all the applications. 4. Mr. K.Sarva Bhauman, Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner raised very many contentions and contended that on facts, the amendment applied for should have been allowed as the amendment will not introduce a new case, that it will alter the suit, and that the first appellate Court should not have gone into the merits of amendment while deciding the amendment application. The learned counsel also contended that the order passed by the first appellate Court amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and that the order passed by the District Court has be set aside in those revisions. 5. Mr. Nandhakumar appearing for the respondent in all the revisions contended that no interference is called for. 6. The merits of amendment will not be taken into consideration while deciding the amendment application and this is a well-settled proposition. In the present case, the amendment though belated, cannot be suggested that it would amount to change in the cause of action or it would change the character of the suit. However, this Court is not expressing any final opinion in this respect. 7. The main question arising for consideration in the present revisions is whether the amendment of plaint is maintainable in a civil miscellaneous appeal, where the first appellate Court is concerned with the propriety of the injunction order passed by the trial Court in the injunction application. It has been pointed out that the suit is pending on the file of the trial Court and it is only the trial Court which is seized of the suit. It has been pointed out that the suit is pending on the file of the trial Court and it is only the trial Court which is seized of the suit. Before the District Court in the civil miscellaneous appeal, the point that may arise for consideration is whether the order passed in the injunction application has to be sustained or interfered with by the District Judge. In terms of Sec.107 of the Civil Procedure Code, the District Court has to consider or to determine the case that arises on the appeal arising out of an injunction application and not against the main suit. Therefore, it has to be considered as to whether the applications for amendment of application maintainable before the District Court before which Court a civil miscellaneous appeal preferred under O.43 , Rule l(r) is pending? In other words, the trial Court is only seized of the suit even as on today and the entire plaint, is before the trial Court and not before the District Court where a Civil miscellaneous appeal alone is pending. Mr. K. Sharuva Bhauman, Senior Counsel contended that the application for amendment could be maintained at any stage of the proceedings and even be fore the appellate Court and sought to contend that the application for amendment is maintainable even in a civil miscellaneous appeal. I am afraid such a wide proposition cannot be sustained at all. 8. It is true that an application for amendment under O.6 , Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code could be maintained or filed at any stage of the proceedings either before the original court or before the first appellate court or before the second appellate court. In terms ofO.6 , Rule 17 of the Code, the court may, at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings. In my considered view, the amendment application could be filed before the trial court the suit is pending and the trial court is seized of the plaint or before the appellate court after the disposal of the suit where the entire matter is at large and the amendment of the plaint cannot be sought before the appellate court where an appeal arising out of the supplement proceedings is pending and while the suit is pending before the trial court. 9. In Hafiz Mohd. v. Chief Inspector of Stamps Hafiz Mohd. 9. In Hafiz Mohd. v. Chief Inspector of Stamps Hafiz Mohd. v. Chief Inspector of Stamps Hafiz Mohd. v. Chief Inspector of Stamps A.I.R. 1947 All. 340 it has been held that an application for amendment cannot be entertained in a revision arising out of an order deciding the payment of Court fee on the plaint. In the said Judgment, on a check-slips, a revision has been preferred before the Allahabad High Court, while the suit was pending before the trial Court. At the time of disposal of the revision, the counsel for the revision petitioner persuaded the High Court to effect amendments with respect to the reliefs set out in the plaint, while stating that the application for amendment is still pending before the trial Court and the amendment application had not yet received the attention of the Court of the first instance. Waliullah, J. while rejecting such a request, has held thus: “Learned counsel for the applications has invited my attention to the application filed by the plaintiffs on 12.3.1945, after the decision of the revision by the learned District Judge on 19.2.1945. In this application the plaintiffs endeavoured to explain what they actually meant by the language employed in drafting relief B of the plaint. In the end it was specifically prayed that certain amendments of relief B might be allowed at that stage and thereafter calculation of Court-fee be made. This application does not appeal to have been disposed of by the Court of the first instance till now. It appears that certain pleas were taken by the plaintiffs themselves for seeking adjournment of the proceedings in the Court of the learned Munsif and thus the Court of the learned Munsif and thus the Court has not, as yet, passed any order with regard to the amendments sought by means of this application. The learned Counsel at one stage endeavoured to persuade me to allow him here to effect the amendments in relief B as it stands at present, but this request obviously could not be entertained in as much as the matter has not yet received the attention of the Court of first instance.” In Dhaundasingh v. Leeladhar A.I.R. 1982 M.P.14 an identical question arose as in the present case. An appeal was preferred before the District Judge under O.43 , Rule 1(r) of the Civil procedure Code against an order of grant of injunction passed by the Trial Court. In the said appeal, pending before the District Court, an application for amendment of the plaint was taken out. The District Judge allowed the application for amendment of the plaint and consequently passed further orders on the appeal pending before it. The Madhya Pradesh High Court while holding that the appeal preferred before the District Judge was one under O.43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code and not a regular appeal, the jurisdiction of the appellate Court while deciding of such a character has to be confined to examine the validity of an order enumerated in clause (r) of O.43, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The scope of such as appeal is limited and it extends to adjudication of challenge to an order of grant or refusal of interim injunction as provided by O.43, Rule l(r) of the Civil Procedure Code. In that context, Mishra, J. in A.I.R. 1982 M.P.14 held that the District Judge has no seisin over the suit as such and he was just seized of the proceedings for issuance of temporary injunction in the suit not the suit itself. 10. ‘While discussing the question elaborately, Mishra, J. in Dhaundasingh v. Leeladhar A.I.R. 1982 M.P. 14 has held thus: “The Appeal before the learned District Judge was one under O.43 , Rule l(r), C.P.C. and not aregu-lar appeal. Jurisdiction of the appellate Court while deciding appeal of such a character extends only to examine the validity of the order enumerated in Cr.(r) ofO.43 , Rule 1 C.P.C. which runs as under: “An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Sec.104 namely:(r) an order under R.1, R.2, (R.2-A), R.4 or R.10 ofO.39. Accordingly, the scope of such appeal is limited. It extends to adjudication of challenge to an order of grant or refusal of interim injunction as envisaged by O.43 , R.1(r), C.P.C. As such, the learned District Judge has no seisin over the suit as such, he was seized of the proceedings for issuance of a temporary injunction in the suit and not of the suit itself. This aspect of the law appears to have been overlooked by the learned District Judge. This aspect of the law appears to have been overlooked by the learned District Judge. As a logical corollary, flowing from the aforesaid position of law, it has to be concluded that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for amendment of the plaint submitted before him by the plaintiff applicant herein. If the applicant herein (plaintiff) chose to submit the application in the appeal preferred by the defendant before the learned District Judge, only courses which would have been adopted by the learned District Judge were (a) to direct the Plaintiff to submit the amendment application before the trial Court, and (b) to forward it to the trial Court for decision in accordance with law after deciding the appeal on merits. However, he had no jurisdiction to decide the application for amendment of the plaint on its merits. Undoubtedly, by virtue of Sec.108 the provisions relating to appeals from original decrees shall, so far as may be, apply to appeals, inter alia from others made under the Civil P.C. Accordingly, in an appeal against an appealable order under the C.P.C. the powers of the appellate Court, as far as may be, will be the same as are conferred by the Code on the trial court. So also by virtue of Rule 2 of O.43 the rules of O.41, shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from orders. In spite of this, the scope of the appeals underO.43 , Rule l(r) is restricted as discussed above to examine the propriety and/or legality of order passed under the various rules ofO.39 referred therein. A distinction has to be made between the scope of regular appeal and a miscellaneous appeal under the aforesaid provision. While deciding the appeal of former character the appellate Court has, on the theory that appeal is continuation of suit, power to allow amendment in the pleadings, but in an appeal of the latter type the appellate Court has jurisdiction only to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of order refusing or granting an interim injunction. The position of trial Court in such a situation appears to be different, as the trial Court is in seisin of the suit as well as of application for issuance of a temporary injunction made in the suit. The position of trial Court in such a situation appears to be different, as the trial Court is in seisin of the suit as well as of application for issuance of a temporary injunction made in the suit. The cowers exercisable by an appellate Court while heav ing appeals preferred under O.43, Rule l(r) cannot be regarded to extend to allowing amendment of the plaint, as he is not in session of the suit as such. The reation of A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 394, relief on by Shri Nevaskar, is as under (at.p.397): “An appeal is a proceeding for the purpose of Sec. 146 and further the expression” claiming under “is wide enough to include cases of devolution and assignment mentioned in O.22 Rule 10. Whoever is entitled to be but has not been brought on record underO.22 , Rule 10 in a pending suit or proceeding would be entitled to prefer an appeal against the decree or order passed therein if his assignor could have filed such an appeal, there being no prohibition against it in the Code.” The Madhya Pradesh High Court had ultimately held that the District Judge had acted in an illegal manner and assumed jurisdiction in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint submitted by the plaintiff/applicant. It has been further held thus: “In view of the aforesaid discussions, it has to be concluded that the learned District Judge acted in an illegal manner and he appears to have erroneously assumed jurisdiction to allow the application for amendment of the plaint submitted by the plaintiff-applicant. It is law well settled that a party cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court, which it does not possess. According, nothing turns on the fact that it was the plaintiff-applicant, who solicited amendment before the learned District Judge. It appears further that the learned District Judge acted in an illegal manner in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff-applicant herein merely after allowing amendment in the plaint.” I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by Justice Mishra. The entire discussion is on the basic principle and it revolves around the question as to whether the lis is pending or which Court is seized of the lis. The application for injunction originally filed before the trial court having been dismissed, an appeal has been preferred. The entire discussion is on the basic principle and it revolves around the question as to whether the lis is pending or which Court is seized of the lis. The application for injunction originally filed before the trial court having been dismissed, an appeal has been preferred. Such an appeal arises out of an interlocutory application which is only a supplemental proceeding while the suit is still pending on the file of the trial court which court alone is competent toientertain or take up an application for amendment of the plaint. In the appeal before the District Court, the District Court as an appellate court has to decide on the propriety or validity of the order passed on the injunction application alone and not beyond it and it has to decide the matter which has come before it in terms of Sec.107 of the Civil Procedure Code. It cannot be said that the proceedings, namely, suit is pending before the District Court before whom the application for amendment has been taken out in the pending civil miscellaneous appeal. The appeal before the District Court, namely, the civil miscellaneous appeal preferred under O.43, Rule l(r) , Civil Procedure Code is only a supplemental proceeding and not a proceeding in the suit and it cannot be further held that the District Court is seized of the plaint or seized of the lis as much in its entirity and as such no application underO.6 , Rule 17, C.P.C., is maintainable before the District Court. 11. This Court holds that the application for amendment of plaint is not maintainable at all before the District court in the pending civil miscellaneous appeal, and the petitioner cannot confer jurisdiction on the said Court to amend the pleadings. It is not as if the petitioner has taken out an application under Sec.24 of the Code to call for the records in the suit and pass orders. On the other hand, the petitioner has proceeded as if an application for amendment of the plaint could be entertained and decided by the District Court. Consequently, it has to be held that the order passed by the Court below being one without jurisdiction, is non-est for all purposes. On the other hand, the petitioner has proceeded as if an application for amendment of the plaint could be entertained and decided by the District Court. Consequently, it has to be held that the order passed by the Court below being one without jurisdiction, is non-est for all purposes. Unless the plaint is amended, the schedule the application to amend in the injunction application is not permissible so also the application to amend the schedule in the civil miscellaneous appeal as well as in the ad-interim injunction application. 12. In the foregoing circumstances, this Court while holding that the District Court has acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the applications for amendment which are not maintainable, dismiss all the three revisions. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to take out appropriate application before the trial Court where the suit is pending and the trial Court shall decide the application for amendment of the plaint on merits according to law. Thereafter it is open to the petitioner to seek amendment in the injunction petitions as well. No costs, Consequently, C.M.P.No.17184 of 1996 is also dismissed. B.S. ----- Petitions dismissed.