B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 15/3/2000 passed on I. A. XIX in O. S. No. 325 of 1996 on the file of the additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hubli, this revisior petition is preferred. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 have filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the C. P. C. seeking the permission to amend the plaint at para (e) of the prayer column. ( 3 ) IT is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 have instituted the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and consequential injunction. Now the application is filed for amendment of relief column at para (e) stating that if the plaintiffs are not in actual possession of the suit property, a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property be allowed by holding that the plaintiffs-tenants have been illegally evicted by the first defendant-landlord. ( 4 ) IT is also stated that the plaintiffs are liable to pay Court-fee under Section 41 (d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation act and the said relief is valued for Rs. 24,000. This application (I. A. I) is resisted by the defendants contending that the proposed amendment is not necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. They further contend that the plaintiffs by virtue of the lease deed are in possession of the suit property and now the relief sought for are inconsistent with the pleas and pleadings. As such the application is not maintainable. It is specifically contended that this application is barred by the time as per Section 6 of the Specific Relief act. ( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge, Junior Division has discussed the averments and the objections. I find one lacuna in this order, viz. why has the learned Judge not discussed the decisions cited by the defendants. In my opinion the lower Court has not properly applied its mind. It is also pertinent to note that it has only taken note of the decisions cited by the respondents 1 and 2. It goes without saying that there is improper application of the mind. The conclusion may be! right or wrong but all the materials that are placed on the record should be discussed in proper perspective. It is also pertinent to note that it has only taken note of the decisions cited by the respondents 1 and 2. It goes without saying that there is improper application of the mind. The conclusion may be! right or wrong but all the materials that are placed on the record should be discussed in proper perspective. Hence, in my opinion this matter is required to be remanded for reconsideration. The lower court is also directed to follow the decisions cited by both the sides. Hence, the following' order : the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back for reconsideration of I. A. XIX and to proceed in accordance with law. Revision allowed. Matter remanded to Trial Court. --- *** --- .