ORDER 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant petitioner has called in question the pregnability of the order dt. 5.7.99 passed by the learned 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Misc. Appeal No. 22/98 whereby he has allowed applications namely the application for amendment and application for impleadment of parties. 2. The factual matrix lie in a narrow compass. The non-applicant as plaintiff filed a civil suit No. 276-A/98 for permanent injunction. Alongwith the suit a prayer was made for grant of temporary injunction. As the injunction was granted the defendant/petitioner preferred an appeal forming the subject matter of M.A. No. 22/98 which was assigned to the learned XIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. Before the lower appellate Court an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint and another application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleadment was filed. The lower appellate Court by the impugned order allowed both the applications. 3. Submission of Mr. Tiwari. learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned lower appellate' Court could not have entertained such applications in Misc. Appeal. In this context he placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Dhundasingh v. Leeladhar and another, AIR 1982 MP 14 and Shahida Fatima (Smt.) and others v. Altaf Khan and Others, 1996 (l) Vidhi Bhasvar. 246. Mr. Qureshi. learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court. 4. In the case of Dhundasingh (supra) the learned single Judge has held that when the District Judge is entertaining an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 he has no jurisdiction to amend the plaint. It has been held as under :- "The District Judge while hearing the appeal preferred under O. 43 Rule 1 (r) against the order of grant of interim injunction passed by the trial Court, has no jurisdiction to decide the application for amendment of the plaint on merits. The scope of such appeal under Order 43 Rule I (r) is restricted to examine the propriety and or legality of order passed under various rules of O. 39. The scope of such appeal under Order 43 Rule I (r) is restricted to examine the propriety and or legality of order passed under various rules of O. 39. As such, the District Judge has no seisin over the suit and the application could have been and ought to have been forwarded to the Trial Court for decision according to law after deciding the appeal on merits. " 5. In the case of Shahida Fatima (Smt.) (supra) the learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 held as under:- "6. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether the present applicants were justified in making an application before the first appellate Court, without approaching the trial Court where the suit is pending? It is clear from the narration of facts as above, the trial Court had granted an injunction on the application of plaintiffs/non-applicants 2 to 4 herein, which is being challenged in the Misc. appeal. 'The applicants are not parties to the original suit. If at all, they should have approached the trial Court for being joined as parties where their application could have been considered on merits. Strangely enough, rather than doing so, they have approached the appellate Court where the appeal, allowing the application for temporary injunction is pending. The procedure sought to be adopted by the applicants clearly cannot be sustained. Various case laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicants only go on to discuss and indicate as to who are proper and necessary parties and when they can be impleaded. But, as pointed out above, in the present case, the question to be considered is as to whether the applicants are entitled to join as parties in the Misc. Appeal. without approaching the trial Court? According to me. since no authority in support of such a proposition has been placed before me by the learned counsel for the applicants. I hold that the applicants should not have approached the appellate Court in the above manner and the proper course for them would have been to approach the trial Court where the suit is pending for being joined as parties, if they were so advised. The impugned order, dismissing the application, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity or lack of jurisdiction." 6. The impugned order, dismissing the application, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity or lack of jurisdiction." 6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is devoid of substance and suffers from jurisdictional error and material irregularity. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Needless to emphasize that it would be open to the petitioner to file such applications in the suit. 7. The civil revision is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.