Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Smt. Rama Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Nand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. The respondent no. 2 filed SCC Suit No. 13 of 1996 in the Court of Small Cause, Jhansi which was finally heard on 05.01.2000 and 07.01.2000 was fixed for delivery of judgment. Just a day earlier, on 06.01.2000, the respondent no. 2 moved an application seeking amendment in the plaint stating that boundary of disputed property has not been mentioned in the plaint and, therefore, he may be permitted to amend the plaint by mentioning boundary. 3. It is not the case of the parties that disputed property was not identifiable and there was any dispute regarding identity of suit property. The Trial Court has not non-suited the respondent no. 2 on the ground that he had failed to mention boundary of suit property in the plaint. On the contrary, the Trial Court has decided the suit on merits and rejected application for amendment being wholly unwarranted and a dilatory tactics. 4. The Revisional Court by means of impugned order dated 07.01.2002 has set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 07.01.2000 by observing that nature of amendment application shows that it must have been allowed. The Revisional Court has passed the impugned judgment without looking to the relevant aspect of the matter that there was no dispute regarding identity of property and even if the boundary is not mentioned, subsequently before Trial Court the parties were in agreement regarding the identity of suit property. Mere non-mention of boundary would have made no difference. The suit was decided on merits and the landlord-plaintiff was not non-suited on the ground of non-mention of boundary of suit property in the plaint. The Revisional Court's judgment is, therefore, clearly erroneous, illegal and cannot sustain. It shows an apparent illegal exercise of power on the part of Revisional Court. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Revisional Court's judgment dated 07.01.2002 is hereby quashed and the Trial Court's judgment dated 07.01.2000 is restored and confirmed. No costs. _____________