B. A. Khan ( 1 ) PETITIONERS have filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming that 1 Bigha 2 Biswas land was a "mazar" and that it was never acquired by UOI. The UOI opposed it on the plea that land was transferred by it to DDA. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS allege that UOI had taken a contradictory stand in some allied Suit No. 572/90 asserting that suit land was transferred to CPWD on 14. 2. 1986. Upon this they moved an application for amendment of plaint and for production of documents related to that Suit No. 572/90. Trial Court rejected their application and imposed a cost of Rs. 3,000. 00 by impugned order dated 27. 10. 1998 and hence this revision. ( 3 ) TRIAL Court s rejection proceeds on the basis that petitioners had failed to give particulars of land forming subject-matter of Suit No. 572/90 rendering the proposed amendment vague. ( 4 ) THE impugned order to this extent cannot be faulted in my view. Because if petitioners were unable to lay foundation for proposed amendment, their prayer was not liable to be granted and was rightly rejected by Trial Court. ( 5 ) AS regards petitioners application for production of documents related to Suit No. 572/90,1 see no reason why this application be not considered and disposed of or why Trial Court should await reference to such documents in petitioners evidence. This application is required to be disposed of on its own merit and Trial Court is directed to do so at the earliest. ( 6 ) I also find no justification for imposing costs of Rs. 3,000. 00 on petitioners. This is not supported by any reasoning at all and it is not known whether this was done for seeking amendment by them or in the background of action taken suffered by them pursuant to their alleged eviction from the suit land. The direction in any case becomes arbitrary and unsustainable and is quashed. ( 7 ) THE petition partly succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated. Petition partly allowed.