JUDGMENT This is a revision by the plaintiff against the order dated 31.3.2001 n Civil Appeal No. 54-A of 2000 of the 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by which the application of the defendant ,under Order 6 rule CPC for amendment in the written statement during the pendency :h the appeal has been allowed. Arguments of both the sides heard. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the application for amendment could not have been considered without hearing arguments on merits of the appeal. The appellate Court has considered the merits of the appeal in 27 paragraphs and then allowed the application for amendment in para 28 of the impugned order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellate Court has committed any procedural error. Through the proposed amendment the defendant wants to say that the plaintiff has already got the possession of two shops. It is for the plaintiff to admit or deny this fact through consequential amendment in the plaint and if this fact is admitted, the remand will not be required and the appeal will be decided on merits. The revision stands disposed of.