JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.By the impugned order the learned trial court has disposed of two applications of the petitioner dated 4.11.97 and 17.1.98 filed for amendment of the plaint and has declined the permission to amend the plaint. 2. The plaintiff had filed the present suit in October, 1993 interalia seeking declarations regarding resolutions of the meeting of the trust and decisions taken there at dated 13.3.93 to be null and void. The main controversy in the suit includes a controversy about defendant No. 1 having been appointed as president of the trust instead of the plaintiff, defendant No. 4 having been appointed as secretary instead of defendant No. 7 and so on. In this suit written statement has been filed and counter claim has also been lodged. The suit thereafter has not registered any progress further. 3. By the application for amendment what the plaintiff seeks to add is that pursuant to the resolution dated 13.3.93, action had been taken before the authorities under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, as the trust, plaintiff claims to be president whereof, is admittedly public trust registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. That action taken before the authorities under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act ultimately culminated into the order of the Commissioner Devasthan dated 13.5.97 whereby, the appeal was dismissed against the order of Assistant Commissioner Devasthan dated 19.5.95 whereby changes had been effected in the entries of the register of Public Trusts. According to the petitioner this being, firstly a subsequent event, secondly an action taken pursuant to the resolution dated 13.3.93 which precisely constitute subject matter of the suit, could even otherwise be taken cognizance by learned trial court as subsequent event, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and in order to avoid complication the plaintiff expressly wanted to assail that order in the present suit itself. 4. 4. The learned trial court has dismissed application interalia on the ground that firstly application has been filed after three years, secondly that this amendment would necessitate the impleadment of State Government and Devasthan authorities as parties, would require addition of reliefs and that the plaintiff has separate remedy to assail the impugned order by way of filling civil suit under Section 22 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act within a period of six months from the date of publication of the order and that the plaintiff had already filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court as such, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to pursue parallel remedies. It was also held that the Rajasthan Public Trust Act is an independent complete code which contemplate filing of separate suit and therefore by implication the jurisdiction of the learned trial court is barred. 5. Having heard learned counsel and perusing the impugned order so also the record, I am satisfied that the learned trial court was clearly in jurisdictional error in declining to allow the application for amendment practically on all counts rather some of the findings are self contradictory. Admittedly the application for amendment has been filed within a period of six months from the date of passing of the order of the Commissioner Devasthan. In such circumstances simply because it has been filed after about 3 years of the date of the filing of the main suit, is wholly irrelevant when the amendment was necessitated only on account of contesting defendants taking action in furtherance of the resolution which was already under challenge in the suit itself. The learned trial court was also in error in holding that the jurisdiction of the learned trial court is barred in view of Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Thus, considering rather from any stand point, I am unable to uphold the impugned order. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside the applications filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint are allowed. Whatever objections the defendants have against the plea sought to be raised by amendment, would obviously be open to them to be taken in the written statement. The record of the learned trial court be returned forthwith. Since the suit is of the year 1996 the learned trial court is directed to expeditiously complete the trial.Revision Allowed. *******