JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is defendant in Eviction Suit No.11 of 2004, is aggrieved of order dated 05.06.2014 passed in Eviction Appeal No.l0 of 2007 by which the application under Order-VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint has been allowed. 2. Eviction Suit No.11 of 2004 was instituted against M/s Sao Bhandar, proprietor- Duli Chand Sao, on the ground of default in payment of rent, personal necessity of the plaintiff and on the ground of material alteration in the suit property. During pendency of the suit Duli Chand Sao died and in his place his legal heirs and successors were substituted. The suit was partly decreed. Aggrieved, the parties have preferred appeals against the judgment in the Eviction Suit No.11 of 2004. The plaintiff has preferred Eviction Appeal No.9 of 2007 and the defendant has preferred Eviction Appeal No.10 of 2007. In Eviction Appeal No.10 of 2007 an application for amendment in the plaint was filed which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 05.06.2014. This is the order under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent states that another suit being Eviction Suit No.09 of 2004 was instituted by Ram Kumar Sahu, S/o Duli Chand Sao against the present petitioner which was decreed and in the Eviction Appeal No.11 of 2007 preferred by the defendant- Amresh Kumar Sao, similar amendment in the plaint has been permitted by the appellate court and against that order the defendant-tenant came to this Court in W.P.(C) No.5190 of 2016, which by an order dated 10.10.2017 has been dismissed. 4. Mr. M.K. Laik, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the amendment sought by the appellant-plaintiff through application dated 05.07.2013 is identical and similarly worded as was sought by the plaintiff in Eviction Appeal No.11 of 2007. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, further discussion either on facts or in law is not necessary and the writ petition is dismissed.