ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of defendant-petitioner assailing order dated 06.01.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Srimadhopur, in Case No.183/94, B.T.S.-775/98, 38/03, whereby application filed by him under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed. 2. Defendant-petitioner, in aforesaid application, contended that pursuant to judgment dated 17.01.2015 of this court in Writ Petition No.17265/2012 filed by plaintiff-respondent, cause-title of the suit has been permitted to be amended. Originally, the suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent describing him as "Mandir Shri Radha Madhav Ji through Pujari Shri Chaturbhuj Das, Chela Hanuman Das, Resident of Srimadhopur, District Sikar". Now pursuant to aforesaid judgment of this court, the plaintiff-respondent would be described as "Mandir Shri Radha Madhav Ji through Pujari and Trustee Shri Chaturbhuj Das, Chela Hanuman Das, Resident of Srimadhopur, District Sikar". 3. In the application filed under Section 151 of the CPC, prayer was made on behalf of defendant-petitioner for making appropriate amendment in the written statement raising objection in respect to the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Learned trial court, vide impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that this court has merely permitted change in the cause-title of the plaint and not the pleadings of the written statement and therefore application was dismissed. 4. Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for defendant-petitioner, submitted that aforesaid order of this court was passed in absence of counsel for defendant-petitioner. This court, while allowing to change cause-title of the plaint, in its order dated 17.01.2015 itself permitted the defendant-petitioner that he, if so likes, will be allowed by the trial court to lead additional evidence in this regard. It is submitted that if the evidence even if allowed, cannot be read in absence of relevant pleadings in the written statement. It is contended that defendant-petitioner would confine his proposed amendment in the pleadings of written statement only with reference to the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and not otherwise. Learned trial court was therefore not justified in not permitting the amendment. 5. Shri G.P. Sharma, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent, opposed the writ petition and submitted that no proper application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC was made giving proposed amendments. The application was simplified under Section 151 of the CPC. Learned trial court was therefore not justified in not permitting the amendment. 5. Shri G.P. Sharma, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent, opposed the writ petition and submitted that no proper application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC was made giving proposed amendments. The application was simplified under Section 151 of the CPC. Mere change in the cause-title does not entitle the defendant-petitioner to raise objections. Since this court has already permitted the defendant-petitioner to lead evidence and such evidence in reference to legal objections can be raised without there being any pleadings, the impugned order need not be interfered with. Learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent, in support of his case, has relied on judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Radhey Shyam Soni v. Sumer Mal Phophalia and Another; 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC 493. 6. Having regard to the facts afore-stated, it is evident that change in the cause-title has changed the character of the plaint, though originally plaintiff described himself as "Mandir Shri Radha Madhav Ji through Pujari Shri Chaturbhuj Das, Chela Hanuman Das, Resident of Srimadhopur, District Sikar", but now apart from "Pujari", the plaintiff is also being described as "Trustee", presumably because Trust is registered. Since, this court itself vide order dated 17.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.17265/2012 permitted the defendant-petitioner to lead evidence thereabout, prayer for amendment in the pleadings in that limited scope ought to receive proper consideration. 7. In view of the above, present writ petition is disposed off requiring defendant-petitioner to move an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC indicating proposed amendments, which he wants to make in written statement. Such amendment would be confined only with reference to provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and no amendment outside the provisions shall be permitted to be made therein. Plaintiff-respondent would however be entitled to oppose the application on the parameters applying to amendment of pleadings. The application shall be decided on its merits within a period of one month from the date it is filed. It is made clear that a period of not more than three months shall be granted to defendant-petitioner to adduce his evidence in the light of earlier judgment of this court and the matter shall be expeditiously decided thereafter. This also disposes off stay application.