JUDGMENT 1. - This matter is placed on the application filed by the plaintiff petitioner under order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC. This application is filed on 12.3.2003. The plaintiff petitioner expired on 14.12.2002. It is within limitation. Otherwise also the provisions of Rule 22 are not applicable to the Civil Revisions filed under section 115 of the CPC. The application succeeds and the same is allowed and in place of the plaintiff petitioner his heirs and legal representatives mentioned in para No. 1 of the application are taken on record. 2. The registry is directed to make necessary endorsement to this effect in the cause title in red ink. 3. Admit. Shri G.C. Garg, Advocate, has already put appearance for the defendant non-petitioner, therefore, notice needs not to issue. The mtter is complete. 4. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. The plaintiff petitioner filed two suits for eviction of the defendant tenant from two different premises in his possession. One suit has been decreed and the defendant non-petitioner filed the first appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter be preferred second appeal which was decided by this Court and the order of this Court reads as under : 6. In the suit, out of which this revision arises, the plaintiff petitioners filed an application for amendment thereof, which was rejected under the impugned order. The suit out of which this revision arises, inter alia, it based on the ground of availability of another suitable accommodation to the defendant non-petitioner. In view of the final judgment given in second appeal between the same parties are another premises the plaintiff petitioner has to amend the plaint. They were also permitted to amended the plaint by this Court. Further this Court has made it clear that its decision will not have any bearing on the other suit or the proceedings pending between the parties. The learned trial Court has not carefully read the judgment of this Court given in the second appeal in another suit between the parties. In case it would have been done, this order would not have been passed. There is no question of change of different premises. This is wholly a perverse order which cannot be allowed to stand. 7. The learned trial Court has not carefully read the judgment of this Court given in the second appeal in another suit between the parties. In case it would have been done, this order would not have been passed. There is no question of change of different premises. This is wholly a perverse order which cannot be allowed to stand. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition succeeds and the same is allowed and the order of the learned trial Court dated 7.1.1999 passed in civil suit no 311/1991 is quashed and set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff petitioners under order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed and they are permitted to carry out the amendments in the plaint as prayed therein. 8. Since the suit, out of which this revision petition arises, is of the year 1991, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit itself within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order The compliance of this order is to be reported to the Court.Revision petition allowed. *******