Honble SHARMA, J.–This instant revision arises from the order dated December 6, 1996, of the learned Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur City, whereby the application filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff-non- petitioner was allowed. (2). Briefly stated facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner (for short the `plaintiff) instituted a suit for permanent injunction before the trial Court against the defendants-petitioners (for short the `defendants) stating therein that the plaintiff was a tenant in the shop in question. The defendants wanted to make repair in the said shop and threatened the plaintiff to dispossess forcibly. Therefore, the defendants entered into caveat and appeared before thelearned trial Court on Nov. 10, 1994. The plaintiff and the defendants moved an application on Nov.10, 1994 under Section 151 CPC before the learned trial Court. The defendants wanted to make repair in the said shop and threatened the plaintiff to dispossess forcibly. Therefore, the defendants entered into caveat and appeared before thelearned trial Court on Nov. 10, 1994. The plaintiff and the defendants moved an application on Nov.10, 1994 under Section 151 CPC before the learned trial Court. A perusal of the said joint application reveals that following undertaking was filed by the parties : ^^¼1½ ;g fd vizkFkhZx.k tokc izkFkZuk i=k ds vf/kdkjksa dks lqjf{kr j[krs gq, nksuksa Qjhd bl vkk; dh v.MjVsfdax nsrs gS%& ;g fd fdjk;skqnk ifjlj ftldk fooj.k okn i=k ds en uEcj&1 ¼,d o 2 (nks½ esa of.kZr fd;k x;k gS izfroknhx.k ds ekfydkuk gd dk gS] ftlesa oknh fdjk;snkj dh gSlh;r ls dkfct gSA izfroknhx.k edku rkehjkr o ejEer dh btktr uxj fuxe] t;iqj ls izkIr dj pqds gS blfy;s fdjk;skqnk ifjlj dk dCtk fnukad 11-11-1994 dks oknh] izfroknhx.k dks [kkyh djds laHkyk nsxkA izfroknhx.k vius edku dh rkehjkr djrs le; nqdku oknxzLr fdjk;skqnk rhu ekg dh vof/k esa rkehj djds okil oknh dks fnukad 18-2-1995 ¼nl Qjojh lu~ mUuhl lkS fipkuos½ dks laHkyk nsxkA rkehjkr ds le; nqdku dh yEckbZ o pkSM+kbZ fcuk vklkjksa ds tks ekStwnk gSa mlls fdlh Hkh lwjr esa de ugha gksxhA mWapkbZ nqdku ukS QhV ls de ugha gksxh] c<sxh og fdjk;snkj oknh dks lqfo/kk ds :i feysxhA fdjk;skqnk nqdku dk fdjk;k 50@& :i;s ekfld gS tks ubZ rkehjkr ds ckn fnukad 11-2-1996 ls 100@& :- lkS :i;s rkfd gksxkA ¼2½ ;g fd mDr v.MjVsafdax izfroknhx.k ls nksuksa Qjhdsu lger gS] nqdku dk dCtk ugha nsus ij U;k;ky; ls dh ekQZr dCtk oknh] izkIr djus o gtkZ [kpkZ izkIr djus dk gdnkj gksxkA ¼3½ ;g fd dCtkoknh izkIr djus ds ipkr~ nksuksa i{k izkFkZuk i=k vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk o nkok lgefr ls fuf.kZr djok ysaxsA vr% v.MjVsafdax izfroknhx.k izkFkZuk i=k ds en uEcj&1 ¼,d½ esa of.kZr ds vuqlkj izdj.k esa vkxs rkjh[k iskh fnukad 10-2-1995 ds ipkr~ dh fu;r fd, tkus ds vknsk iznku djsaA** t;iqjA fnukad % (3). On the basis of the joint application the case was adjourned for Feb. 10, 1995. (4). Thereafter, the plaintiff on March 8, 1995, submitted an application underSection 151 CPC seeking mandatory injunction in respect of possession of the property in dispute. The defendant No.2 filed reply to the said application but defendant No.1 did not choose to file reply. On the basis of the joint application the case was adjourned for Feb. 10, 1995. (4). Thereafter, the plaintiff on March 8, 1995, submitted an application underSection 151 CPC seeking mandatory injunction in respect of possession of the property in dispute. The defendant No.2 filed reply to the said application but defendant No.1 did not choose to file reply. Thereafter, the learned labour court recorded the evidence of the parties. The plaintiff examined himself as AW-1, whereas defendant Smt. Aladi Begum appear as a witness and produced Aziz andZarif Ahmed in support of her reply. (5). The learned trial court vide its order dated December 6, 1996, allowed the application under Section 151 of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to hand-over the possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff. Against this order, the present action for filing revision has been resorted to. (6). I have given my anxious considerations to the rival contentions and care-fully perused the record. Mr.Z.A. Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the relief which was not sought in the plaint could not have been granted to the plaintiff. It was the duty of the plaintiff to amend the suit incorporating subsequent events. (7). Reliance was placed on the case of Abdul Razak vs. Narain Das and Anr.(1) and Lakshmikutty Amma Retnamma vs. P.N. Krishna Pillai and Others (2). On the other hand, Mr. Ushama Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and placed reliance on the case of Azim Khan vs. The State, (3), Cheni Chenchaiah vs. Shaik Alli Saheb & Others (4), Satya Narain vs. Shantilal (5), District Wakf Committee vs. Smt. Badri Bai and Others (6) and Devlaand Ors. vs. Khem Chand (7). (8). I have given my anxious considerations and carefully perused the Judgment as well as the case law cited at the Bar. In Azim Khans case (supra), it was held by this Court that if the plaintiff is dispossessed during the pendency of the suit for declaration, amendment of plaint should not be insisted upon and the plain-tiff should be put back inpossession so that status quo ante be restored. (9). In Azim Khans case (supra), it was held by this Court that if the plaintiff is dispossessed during the pendency of the suit for declaration, amendment of plaint should not be insisted upon and the plain-tiff should be put back inpossession so that status quo ante be restored. (9). Admittedly the plaintiff was in possession of the shop in dispute on the date of institution of the suit and he was dispossessed from the said shop on the basis of undertaking filed under Section 151 CPC by the parties on Nov. 10, 1994, before the learned trial Court. Therefore, in view of ratio of Azim Khans case (supra),the plaintiff, who was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit was entitled to the possession of the shop and it was the duty of the learned trial Court to restore the status quo ante. (10). I am not convinced of the arguments made by Mr. Z.A. Naqvi and ratio of Abdul Razak vs. Narain Das and Ors.s case (supra) and Lakshmikutty AmmaRatnamma vs. P.N. Krishna Pillais case (supra), is not applicable in the instant case. Indisputably the act of the defendants amounts to over-reaching the process of law and it is the duty of the trial Court to protect the rights of the parties as they existed on the date of filing of the suit. (11). Learned trial court decided the application of the plaintiff after recordingthe evidence of the parties, by a well reasoned order. I see no error of jurisdiction in the said order. (12). In the result the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned order of the learned trial Court stands confirmed. The record of the trial Court be sent forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court onSept. 9, 1997, Cost is easy.