C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) QUESTIONING the order dated 24-9-2004 allowing IA. No. 951 of 2004 in os No. 371 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, karimnagar, filed under Rule 17 of Order vi CPC by the respondents/defendants, this revision is preferred by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the petition was filed after the trial of the suit is taken up, in view of the amended rule 17 of Order VI CPC as per Act 22 of 2002, the Court below was in error in allowing the petition. It is his contention that in any event since amendment sought is devoid of merit in view of the earlier orders of this Court, the Court below was in error in allowing the petition. ( 3 ) BY virtue of Section 16 (2) (b) of the Act 22 of 2002, the provisions of Rule 17 of Order VI CPC as amended by that act 22 of 2002 do not apply to the pleading filed before the commencement of the said Act 22 of 2002, which came into force on 1-7-2002. Since the pleadings in this case were filed before 1-7-2002 Rule 17 of Order VI amended as per Section 7 of Act 22 of 2002 does not apply to this case. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent cannot maintain a petition under rule 17 of Order VI CPC by virtue of its amendment by Act 22 of 2002. ( 4 ) IT is well known that while considering a petition under Rule 17 of order VI CPC the Court cannot go into the merits of the amendment sought to be made and so the second contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner is of no help to the revision petitioner, who are at liberty to file a rejoinder by seeking leave of the Court. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, I find no merits in this revision and so the petition is dismissed.