JUDGMENT 1. AFTER being unsuccessful in the suit before the learned Trial Judge, the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an appeal before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Ghatal. The said appeal was registered as Title Appeal No. 3 of 2009. 2. AN application for amendment of plaint was filed by the plaintiffs/ appellants therein in the said appeal. The defendants/petitioners invited the learned Appeal Court to consider the plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint along with the appeal. 3. THE learned Appeal Court rejected such prayer of the petitioners. THE learned Appeal Court, in fact, proposes to consider the plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint before posting the appeal for hearing. 4. HENCE, the defendants/petitioners are aggrieved by the said order. As such, they have come before this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Considered the materials on record including the impugned order. 5. LET me now consider as to how far the learned Appeal Court was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. 6. IN fact, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case Bangshidhar Pal v. Anil Kumar Pal, reported in (1994)2 Cal LJ 114 held that an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be considered by the Appeal Court in isolation of the appeal. As such, the learned Appeal Court is required to consider the application for additional evidence along with the appeal. But the same principle need not be followed in hearing the application for amendment of plaint by the Appeal Court as the merit of the plaintiffs' application for amendment can be considered independent of the appeal though the merit of the appeal ultimately will depend upon the fate of the plaintiffs' application for amendment. As such, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revisional application, thus, stands rejected.