JUDGMENT Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This revision is directed against the Order dated 31.3.1998 in Civil Suit No. 32A/92 by Civil Judge, Class II, Raisen whereby the application of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed on 12.1.1998 has been allowed. It appears that the first application for amendment was moved by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on 12.1.1998. Thereafter he filed an application for amendment on 5.2.1998. On 20.3.1998 he did not press the application for amendment filed on 5.2.1998, but again filed a fresh petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 20.3.98. From the order-sheet of the trial Court dated 30.3.1998 it appears that arguments on the said application were heard and the case was listed for orders thereon on 31.3.1998. The impugned-order dated 31.3.1998 disposed off the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 12.1.1998 and application dated 20.3.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 1 submits that he was never given an opportunity of being heard on the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed on 12.1.1998. The order-sheet dated 30.3.98 does not specifically mention as to on which application, the arguments were heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arguments on that dated were heard on the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed on 30.3.1998 and not on the earlier application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by him on 12.1.98. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that arguments on both the applications dated 12.1.98 and 20.3.1998 were heard. As noticed earlier, the order-sheet dated 30.3.98 of trial Court is rather vague in the above regard and does not give particulars of the applications on which the arguments were heard. It appears that the trial Court has not followed the directions given in the M.P. Civil Court Rules to mark each of the interlocutory applications with I.A. numbers and give specifications thereof on the right hand margin of the order-sheet. Had it been done and if it was specifically mentioned in the order-sheet dated 30.3.98 as to on which of the I.A.s the arguments were heard, the controversy as above would have been avoided. Had it been done and if it was specifically mentioned in the order-sheet dated 30.3.98 as to on which of the I.A.s the arguments were heard, the controversy as above would have been avoided. However in the above circumstances, since the contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was never heard in relation to the application filed on 12.1.1998, it would be proper to allow the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned-order is set-aside. The trial Court is directed to afford an opportunity to both the parties to address arguments on the applications for amendment filed on 12.1.98 & 20.3.98 and pass an order afresh on the said applications. With the above directions, this revision stands finally disposed of.