JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur dated 2-4-1999 by which he allowed application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC on a cost of Rs. 250/- and remanded the case back to the trial Court to hear both the parties and then pass appropriate order. 2. The case has a checkered history. An ex parte decree for possession of property in dispute was passed on 31-10-1996 against the present petitioners. In execution of that decree possession of the property was delivered to respondent by Sale Amin of the Court. There was one room in which movable property was stored and its key was handed over to the Court. Petitioners filed an application for setting aside ex parte decree which was set aside by order dated 5-5-1998. A revision was filed against the order but the same was dismissed by this Court and the order was confirmed by the Supreme Court. 3. Then the petitioners filed an application under Section 144, CPC for restoration of possession on 11-5-1998. Its reply was filed in which it was pleaded that entire property has been parted with possession to some purchasers and symbolic possession of the room in possession of the Court was given to them on the basis of agreement to sale and hence restoration may not be ordered. It was also objected that the provisions of Section 144, CPC do not apply. The respondent, in order to delay the proceedings for restoration of possession, introduced proposed purchasers in the proceedings of restoration. The trial Court rejected that application of the respondent. The respondent moved a transfer application and approached this Court for transferring the proceedings but the same was rejected. Then the trial Court vide order dated 5-3-1999 ordered for restoration. Then the respondent filed an application for review. This review petition was dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The respondent filed an application against the order dated 5-3-1999 in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur which was transferred for disposal to the learned Additional District Judge No. 3 and also filed a Civil Revision No. 247/99 against the orders dated 5-3-1999 and 8-3-1999. The same was dismissed on 23-3-1999 as the respondent did not press. 4. 1,000/-. The respondent filed an application against the order dated 5-3-1999 in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur which was transferred for disposal to the learned Additional District Judge No. 3 and also filed a Civil Revision No. 247/99 against the orders dated 5-3-1999 and 8-3-1999. The same was dismissed on 23-3-1999 as the respondent did not press. 4. Thereafter the respondent filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC on 24-3-1999 before the learned first appellate Court for amendment of the reply filed by the respondent to the application under Section 144, CPC in which it was pleaded that he wanted to add disputed questions of facts raising the plea that the Court should not exercise its power under Section 151, CPC for restoration and by this amendment the respondent wanted to convert the proceedings under Section 144, CPC into a regular suit. This application was allowed by the impugned order and application under Section 144, CPC has been virtually converted into a regular title suit. Hence this revision. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the law about amendment of pleadings is lenient but in this case the learned appellate Judge committed jurisdictional error by allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC on the basis of AIR 1941 PC 128 , S.N. Banerji v. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd. (in Liquidation) . He also submitted some other revision petition was filed by respondent on which hearing has been refused till the possession was restored (SB Civil Revision No. 286/99, decided on 21-7-1999). He submitted that the restoration application under Section 144, CPC could not have been converted virtually to a civil suit. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amendment was necessary in order to decide the real controversy in the matter. He also submitted that the High Court in such revision should not lightly interfere with discretion exercised by the trial Court. He relied on Kareem Bax v. Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan, 1989 (2) Raj LR 266 . He also submitted that the High Court in such revision should not lightly interfere with discretion exercised by the trial Court. He relied on Kareem Bax v. Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan, 1989 (2) Raj LR 266 . On the basis of Satyanarain v. Bajranglal, 1978 Raj LW 569 , he submitted that to permit the amendment is discretionary and where the discretion has been properly exercised, it cannot be said that the Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in allowing the application for amendment. As such the revision petition should be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. Though the counsel for the petitioners himself admitted that the law of amendment is quite lenient but according to him in the present/case the appellate Court has changed the whole gamut of the matter. It was pure and simple application for restoration of possession submitted under Section 144, CPC. By allowing amendment, the learned appellate Court has opened many a doors for the respondent to raise as many pleas as they thought fit. 9. The citation relied on by the learned appellate Court is AIR 1941 PC 128 (supra) was not a case of restoration on account of setting aside of ex parte decree. In this judgment the Hon'ble Privy Counsel was considering the provisions of Section 151, CPC. It was held in the said citation that where the persons who have been dispossessed are found to be trespassers and the persons in subsequent possession are lawfully in possession by virtue of a valid lease in their favour, it is not necessary for the ends of justice that the trespassers should be restored to possession though they may succeed in a suit for possession. Here in the case before me the bona fides of the respondent are at stake. There was an attempt by the respondent to stall the proceedings under Section 144, CPC right from the very beginning and when all eff orts failed, this method of amendment of the reply was adopted to further obstruct restoration of possession. The learned Judge, who allowed the application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, did not take into consideration all the facts of this case and committed material irregularity in allowing the application. The learned Judge, who allowed the application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, did not take into consideration all the facts of this case and committed material irregularity in allowing the application. It was pure and simple case of restoration of possession under Section 144, CPC when the ex parte decree was set aside and the matter is being made complicated by the respondent. In my view the learned Judge committed material irregularity by allowing this application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC. In this case when the ex parte decree was set aside the only question was whether the restoration of possession was to be made or not ? Nothing more nothing less. In such a case it was not desirable or legal to allow such an amendment application so as to change the whole gamut of the problem. I am of very clear view that the learned Additional District Judge committed material irregularity by allowing this application. The amendment application was definitely mala fide. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC stands dismissed. The appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal after calling it back from trial Court as expeditiously as possible. No orders as to costs.Petition allowed. *******