J. C. MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 8. 9. 98 passed by V. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Meerut allowing amendment application filed by the plaintiff. The opposite parties filed caveat and are represented by Sri R. B. Singhal, Advocate. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri R. B. Singhal, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Both the learned counsel agree that this revision may be decided on merits. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel it would be relevant to refer to the plaint allegations. The suit was filed by Shri Bharat and Associates, a registered partnership firm, through its registered partner as plaintiff. No. 1 and the partners by name (plaintiffs 2?9) against Dr. A. N. Chatterjee father of the revisionist. It is not disputed that old plot No. 103, new No. 657, 658, 659 and present No. 57/58, 912/913 is situated at Begum Bridge Road, Meerut popularly known as ?apka Bazar Buildin. It is admitted between the parties that A D. Mukherjee was owner of the aforesaid building. As A. D. Mukherjee was government servant and was posted at various places he entrusted supervision of his properties to the original defendant who happened to be his near relation. A. D. Mukherjee used to pay Rs. 50 per month for supervision of the properties. It is further admitted that after the death of A. D. Mukherjee Smt. Uma Mukherjee and Anand mukherjee inherited his properties. It is further admitted that the plaintiffs had purchased the said properties from Smt. Uma Mukherjee and Anand Kumar Mukherjee. It is further admitted by the parties that the defendant had been in occupation of the rear part (first floor), portion towards the eastern, northern side of the "building popularly known as ?apka Bazar?. The only dispute between the parties is that according to the plaintiffs the defendant was a licensee and was living in the said portion with the permission of the original owner. The defendant?s case is that he was residing in the house as tenant and was regularly paying rent to A. D. Mukherjee and, thereafter to his successor in interest. The token rent was only rs. 1/? per month. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs also sent notice and asked the defendant to vacate the premises in suit. The defendant?s case is that he was residing in the house as tenant and was regularly paying rent to A. D. Mukherjee and, thereafter to his successor in interest. The token rent was only rs. 1/? per month. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs also sent notice and asked the defendant to vacate the premises in suit. The defendant refused to vacate the premises and on this cause of action the plaintiffs filed suit for eviction and for damages at the rate of rs. 3000/? per month on regular side. ( 4 ) IT appears that during the pendency of the. suit the aforesaid building was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. ( 5 ) FROM the averments in the amendment application it appears, according to the plaintiff?s, the plaintiffs? firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 20. 8. 96 and by virtue of the said dissolution Vakil Chand Jain has become absolute proprietor of the firm. ( 6 ) VAKIL Chand Jain challenged the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the High Court which was dismissed in view of the admitted fact that in pursuance of the said notification the property was taken into possession. The factum of the possession was admitted by Vakil Chand Jain and others in Writ Petition No. 29268 of 1992. The possession of Co?operative, Lucknow on property in question was admitted. The said writ petition was dismissed on 20. 12. 95. ( 7 ) IN view of the land acquisition and also alleged dissolution of the plaintiffs? firm the ? plaintiffs filed the application for amendment cf the plaint which was instituted in the year 1987. By the proposed amendment the plaintiffs desired to substitute the original plaintiffs by newly constituted firm ?shri Bharat Associates? and, therefore, the first amendment is for deleting the names of the plaintiffs (2?6)and to remove ?and? in the title of plaintiff No. 1 so as to correctly describe the description of the new firm. The amendments prayed for in ii, III, IV, V and VI are consequential. In order to describe the rights of the new plaintiff the paragraph 2 has been required to be substituted by new paragraph and some words have been introduced at the end of paragraph 2 and new paragraphs 2b, 2c, and 2d have been added. The amendments prayed for in ii, III, IV, V and VI are consequential. In order to describe the rights of the new plaintiff the paragraph 2 has been required to be substituted by new paragraph and some words have been introduced at the end of paragraph 2 and new paragraphs 2b, 2c, and 2d have been added. Through these amendments it has been stated that Shakti Prakash, Nidhi Prakash, Smt. Ha Prakash, Smt. Anju Prakash and M/s. Nidhi prakash and Sons had relinquished the property in favour of Vakil Chand Jain during the pendency of the suit and by the dissolution of the plaintiffs? firm through dissolution deed vakil Chand Jain, who was one of the partners, has become absolute proprietor. The firm has been reconstituted and Vakil Chand Jain had pooled down the said property to the capital contribution in the said partnership firm and he has relinquished his right and interest in favour of the plaintiff firm, which comprises of Vakil Chand Jain, Vikas Jain, Smt Yamini jain and M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. and as such the plaintiff?s firm has become absolute owner of the entire premises. ( 8 ) THE fact of land acquisition has been sought to be introduced in the plaint by inserting new paragraphs ISA, 13b, and 13c. Through these paragraphs the land acquisition proceedings have been challenged and it has been stated that it is nullify and the right and title of the plaintiff has remained unaffected ( 9 ) THE trial court held that the nature of the suit was not changed and, therefore, al lowed the application. ( 10 ) FELT aggrieved the defendant came up in revision. From the above application it appears that the amendment was necessitated of account of extinguishing of the right of the original plaintiff by virtue of dissolution deed, re?constitution of firm and other assignments. In my opinion, such amendment cannot be allowed without the permission of the court for impleadment of new plaintiff. Order 22 Rule 10 provides as follows ? r. . 10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit ? (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. r. . 10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit ? (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. (2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub?rule (1 ). " care to implead the persons getting any title during the pendency of the suit by transferring assignment etc. is discretionary. In view of this discretion the original plaintiff can prosecute the suit despite transferring assigning or extinguishing of their rights in any manner. In my opinion, instead of moving the amendment application the plaintiff?s firm which has been sought to be arrayed as plaintiff No. 1 and vikas Chand Jain should have filed application under order 22 Rule 10 CPC with consequential relief of the amendment of the plaint. The court could then alter considering the application for impleadment under Order 22 rule 10 would have decided whether the new plaintiff should be permitted to be impleaded. In case such an application is allowed the facts sought to be introduced in paragraph 2, title and other consequential amendments can be permitted as a course. Till the new plaintiff is permitted to be impleaded the proposed amendments could not be permitted as the entire structure and substratum of the plaint has been changed. ( 11 ) REGARDING the amendments introduced with regard to land acquisition in my opinion, this amendment was unnecessary until the defendant raised this question in the pleadings. It is true that if the plaintiff?s title is extinguished by acquisition of the property in suit the plaintiff may not be entitled to any decree and, therefore, the defendant can always raise these questions in the written statement. In case such pleas taken in the written statement then the plaintiff may be entitled to plead that the land acquisition suffers from legal infirmities and could be treated as void and not binding on the plaintiff. , It has not been brought into knowledge through this revision that such plea has been taken. In case such pleas taken in the written statement then the plaintiff may be entitled to plead that the land acquisition suffers from legal infirmities and could be treated as void and not binding on the plaintiff. , It has not been brought into knowledge through this revision that such plea has been taken. In my opinion, this amendment was unnecessary and could not be allowed, ( 12 ) THE plaintiffs apprehend that defendant may file documents regarding acquisition in the suit and argue that the plaintiffs have got no right in the property on account of land acquisition and, therefore, they are not entitled to decree. In my opinion, in such situtation without pleadings the plaintiffs may canvass and point out the infirmities in the land acquisition proceedings and canvass that despite acquisition the plaintiffs right remains unaffected. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Pnchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti sahay and another in support of his contention that powers of amendment are wide and admission can be withdrawn or may be explained away. This pronouncement may not be of any help to the opposite parties as the amendment has not been sought to explain away any amendment but attempted to change the plaintiffs without taking recourse to Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. ( 14 ) IN view of the above discussion 1 find that the trial court committed jurisdictional error in allowing the application or at least it exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity. The revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs. Revision allowed.