JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, laying challenge to an order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara, whereby petitioners' application seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. The needful facts for deciding the present writ petitions, are being taken from S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 13048/2017; which are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for eviction, enhancement of rent and determination of standard rent in the year 2001. In the said suit, petitioners have preferred an application dated 17.03.2017 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interalia seeking amendment in the plaint to the effect that the market rent which has been mentioned as Rs. 2,500/- in paras No. 11 and 12 of the plaint be permitted to be amended as Rs. 30,000/- per month. 3. The petitioners had also sought inclusion of names of the existing trustees of the trust. The trial Court has rejected petitioners' aforesaid application for amendment, interalia observing that the amendment in the paras No. 11 and 12 of the plaint, seeking substitution of the standard rent from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 30,000/- is uncalled for and with respect to the prayer about substitution of name of the trustees, the Court below observed that the plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence, showing that the persons mentioned in the application are the existing trustees. 4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting petitioners' application, seeking amendment, particularly when the Trial Court had on an earlier occasion allowed plaintiffs' application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code and permitted the document and valuation report which evincing the approximate monthly rent of the property in question as Rs. 30,000/-. 5. Mr. Jain further contended that all the trustees mentioned in the application are required to be impleaded as a plaintiffs in the suit proceedings, and the order impugned is thus liable to be set aside. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 7. In considered opinion of this Court, the application filed by the plaintiffs, seeking to substitute the figure/amount of standard rent from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 30,000/- is misconceived and frivolous. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 7. In considered opinion of this Court, the application filed by the plaintiffs, seeking to substitute the figure/amount of standard rent from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 30,000/- is misconceived and frivolous. If the amendment as claimed by the petitioners is permitted to be carried out, it would relate back to the date of institution of the suit whereas the rent of Rs. 30,000/- is admittedly current market rent. The Court is required to determine the standard rent on the date of institution of the suit and periodical increase in accordance with law. 8. As far as the substitution of the name of the trustees is concerned, in view of the provisions of the Order XXXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, all the trustees of registered trust are not required to be impleaded as plaintiffs. 9. If the stand of the petitioners is accepted, then as a result of each change in the Board of the trustees, the suit has to be amended. The trustees are required to be impleaded only when the suit is filed amongst the trustees themselves and not in the cases where the trust itself has instituted the suit as against the private defendants, particularly when it is a trust registered under the Indian Trust Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no substance and force in these writ petitions at hand and the same are dismissed hereby.