ORDER 1. The petitioners-defendants No.2 and 3 have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the impugned order dated 4.4.2012 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Original Suit No.56-A/2011 whereby the application of respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs filed under Order 6 rule 17 has been allowed. 2. The petitioners’ counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition and the papers placed on record argued that whatever amendment was proposed by the respondents-plaintiffs and allowed by the trial Court was barred bylimitation on the date of filing the amendment application and same could not be allowed. He further said that as per averments of the impugned order the alleged documents, on which the amendment is based were very well in the knowledge of the respondents-plaintiffs for years together before filing such application in spite that neither the same were pleaded nor such document was submitted before the trial Court at very belated stage with some mala fide intention the impugned application has been filed, which could not be allowed. In support of his argument he placfed his reliance in the matter of Revajeetu Builders and others v. Narayanswamy and others, reported in ¼2009½10 SCC 84, and prayed to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand by responding the aforesaid arguments Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents NJo.1 and 2 by justifying the impugned order said that the same being based on settled proposition of law is not required any inference and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced by them after going throughthe papers placed on record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage. 5. Firstly in view of the law laiddown by the apex Court in the matter of Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad, reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 , holding that the order of the subordinate Court passed under the vested discretionary jurisdiction of such Court even if such order is wrong till some extent, the same could not be interfered under the revisional jurisdiction and it is apparent fact that the impugned order has been passed under the vested discretionary jurisdiction of the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order does not require any interference. 6. Apart the above, it is settled proposition of law that the amendment application should be allowed liberally as laid down by the apex Court in the matter of L.J. Leach and Co.Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., reported in AIR 1957 SC 357 . So, in such premises also the impugned order does not require any interference. 7. Besides this, it is trite law that at the stage of amendment application merits or demerits of the proposed amendment should not be examined. The same could be examined after becoming the part of the pleading and after framing the additional issues. In such premises, it is observed that the petitioner herein shall be at liberty to amend its written statement in response of the aforesaid amendment of the plaintiff. It is needless to say that the trial Court shall frame the additional issue on such pleading and same shall be considered in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the law. So in such premises even after allowing the amendment application of the respondents No.1 and 2 the right of the petitioners is not going to prejudice in any manner. 8. So far the case law cited by the petitioner counsel in the matter of Revajeetu Builders (supra), so also in the available factual matrix, the same is not helping to the petitioner herein. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any perversity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, consequently the petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the state of motion hearing. 10. Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observation.