JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Defendant Shyam Lal has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 16.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, thereby dismissing application of defendant-petitioner for amendment of written statement. 2. None has appeared for the respondents in spite of many adjournments. 3. Counsel for the petitioner is also not assisting the Court having not prepared the case. 4. I have perused the case file. 5. Respondents/plaintiffs have sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and from dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom and from alienating the suit property in any manner except in due course of law. 6. Defendant, in his written statement, alleged that plaintiffs are tenants in the suit property under the defendant. In the amendment application, the defendant alleged that rate of rent was not mentioned in the written statement due to oversight and space for the same was inadvertently left blank. Accordingly, the defendant sought to plead the rate of rent to be Rs.2,500/- per month. The defendant also sought to plead that he had also filed a rent petition against the plaintiffs, which was pending before the Rent Controller. 7. Plaintiffs opposed the amendment application alleging that there is no relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties and no rent was ever settled. 8. Learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 16.11.2010, dismissed the defendant’s application for amendment of written statement. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant revision petition. 9. Space in the written statement for writing rate of rent was left blank. Consequently, the proposed amendment of the written statement to write the rate of rent should have been allowed, may be on payment of cost. Permitting the said amendment does not mean that defendant’s plea in this behalf has been accepted as proved. On the other hand, after amendment, the defendant has to establish the said plea. As regards plea that defendant has already filed the eviction petition against the plaintiffs/respondents, the same was disallowed by the trial court on the ground that plea of plaintiffs in paragraph 7 of the plaint that no suit was pending between the parties on the same cause of action was admitted as correct in the written statement. As regards plea that defendant has already filed the eviction petition against the plaintiffs/respondents, the same was disallowed by the trial court on the ground that plea of plaintiffs in paragraph 7 of the plaint that no suit was pending between the parties on the same cause of action was admitted as correct in the written statement. However, proposed amendment could not be disallowed on this ground because the eviction petition filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs was not on the same cause of action as the suit filed by the plaintiffs nor the ejectment petition was a suit between the parties because it was an eviction petition and not suit. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that proposed amendment of written statement should have been allowed by the trial court. Impugned order of the trial court suffers from jurisdictional error because the trial court refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to allow proposed amendment of written statement. 11. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. Amendment of written statement, as sought by the defendant-petitioner is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as cost precedent. --------------