JUDGMENT : Darshan Singh, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff-petitioner has already challenged the appellate order dated 06.08.1996 in Para no. 15 of the plaint. He further contended that the amendment qua mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff is in-fact the consequential relief, which is also already mentioned in the prayer of the plaint. He further contended that revision has been filed so that the order passed by the learned Court below may not cause any prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff in the main suit. He contended that when all the pleas were already mentioned in the plaint practically there was no need to move the application for amendment of the plaint. He further contended that the present revision petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, but without any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to raise all the issues before the learned trial Court as per the pleadings. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn. 3. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas before the learned trial Court as per the plea raised in the original plaint.