JUDGMENT : 1. The defendants in an eviction suit have preferred the present revisional application. By virtue of the impugned order, the appellate court has rejected the petitioners’ application for amendment of the petitioners’ additional written statement. 2. Upon the plaintiffs/opposite parties having effected an amendment to the plaint at the appellate stage, thereby bringing on record certain contentions as to the petitioners being no longer tenants in respect of the suit property by virtue of operation of a consequential additional written statement was filed by the present petitioners. 3. Subsequently, upon certain facts, vital to the lis according to the petitioners, having been detected, those were sought to be incorporated by virtue of an amendment to the additional written statement. At the first blush, it seems that the amendment was necessary. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the appellate court, while dismissing the amendment application, prejudged the merits of the appeal, which was not permissible in law, and prays for setting aside the impugned order on such score. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, while controverting such arguments, submits that the appellate court was correct from his stand-point insofar as the legal position was concerned. In view of detailed discussion in the impugned order as to the reason for rejecting the amendment, it is submitted that the impugned order ought not to be interfered with. A perusal of the amendment shows that the same relates to the contentions in the amendment of plaint effected by the opposite parties and the consequential additional written statement and might be germane for deciding the appeal itself. 6. It is apparent that the appellate court proceeded on a premature adjudication of the merits of the proposed amendment, not only of the additional written statement, but a previous amendment effected to the plaint as well, while passing the impugned order. The appellate court, in the impugned order, embarked upon detailed enquiry as to the merits of the proposition advanced by the plaintiffs as to the petitioners having lost their tenancy by virtue of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act and also decided the maintainability of the defence sought to be taken by the petitioners to such amendment. The said exercise, on the face of it, is de hors the law and well-settled principles of amendment of pleadings. The said exercise, on the face of it, is de hors the law and well-settled principles of amendment of pleadings. It is trite that the court, while deciding an amendment application, cannot go into the merits of the proposed amendment, more so, on a detailed legal consideration of the merits. As such, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, C.O. No. 2930 of 2018 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order and allowing the amendment of additional written statement sought by the petitioners in the appellate court below. 8. There will be no order as to costs.