J.V. Gupta, J. - This order will dispose of SAO No. 66 of 1980 and Civil Revision No. 2992 of 1980, as both of them arise out of the same order of the Additional District Judge, Jind, dated 19th September, 1980. 2. The plaintiff Murti (Deity) Shri Paras Nath Digamber Jain filed a suit for a mandatory injunction against Baba Padam Gir defendant-appellant, claiming itself to be the owner of the property. However, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff-respondent's suit on merits, vide judgment dated 21st January, 1980. The plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Jind, against the said decree of the trial Court. Along with the appeal, the plaintiff also filed two applications, one dated 27th March, 1980 and the other dated 23rd April, 1980. The prayer contained in them, in a nutshell, was that either the plaintiff should be allowed to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action or, in the alternative, he should be allowed to amend his plaint in order to take the plea of adverse possession. The lower appellate Court dismissed the application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Against this part of the order of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed Civil Revision No. 2992 of 1980. However, the other prayer for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs. As a result of the application for amendment being allowed, without going into the merits of the case, he also accepted the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing his suit and remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction that it shall take the amended plaint, frame issues which may arise from the amendment of the plaint, record evidence and decide the suit afresh in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the defendant has filed S.A.O. No. 66 of 1980. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal filed on behalf of the defendant is to be allowed on the short ground that even if the amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, the decree of the trial Court could not be set aside on that ground alone. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent was also unable to support the setting aside of the decree by the lower appellate Court. At the most, after allowing the amendment of the plaint, a report could be sent for from the trial Court and on the receipt of the same, the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge could be decided by him taking into consideration the said report. 4. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent has produced a certificate copy of the order of the trial Court dated 1st of October, 1980, wherein the cost of the plaint, was accepted on behalf of the defendant-appellant though under protest. Under these circumstances, the defendant-appellant could not be allowed to agitate against the order of the lower appellate Court allowing the amendment of the plaint. Therefore, the order of the lower appellate Court setting aside the decree of the trial Court, is reversed and it is directed that the appeal before the lower appellate Court be decided by it on merits in accordance with law, after receipt of a report from the trial Court, which has become essential on account of the amendment of the plaint. 5. As the amendment of the plaint has been allowed by the lower appellate Court, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that it should have allowed the withdrawal of the case with permission to file a fresh suit. Consequently, Civil Revision No. 2992 of 1980 dismissed. 6. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear in the trial Court on 27th of April, 1981. As observed earlier, the trial Court will record the evidence necessitated on account of the amendment of the plaint and submit its report on that evidence to the lower appellate Court which will then decide the appeal before it on merits in accordance with law. However, under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.