Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.

1. Heard, Mr. Harshwardhan Sahay, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The petitioners have filed the civil revision application against the order dated 19.7.2004 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Munger in Title Suit No. 67 of 2001, by which he has rejected the petition filed on 20.3.2004 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as the "Code") by the plaintiff-petitioners.

3. The plaintiffs had originally filed the said Title suit praying for bifurcation of Schedule-II suit property from Schedule-I detailed in the plaint on the basis of sale deed dated 19.3.2001 executed by defendant-second party in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and to confirm the possession of plaintiff No. 2 over the said property. The case, as alleged in the plaint, was that there was a family arrangement in the family of the defendants and defendant second party was allotted the land of Schedule-II property and came in possession of the same and subsequently by the sale deed in question transferred the same to plaintiff No. 2 who was, at that time, one of the tenants in the property and had also directed the other tenants orally to pay monthly rent to the plaintiffs from the month next to the execution of the sale deed.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendants Ist party the oral partition was denied. Subsequently, the issues were framed and the matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs on several dates when the application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed praying for as many as 19 amendments out of which 14 are said to be of a formal and typographical nature and only amendment Nos. 2, 15 and 17 are said to be substantive. By amendment No. 2, it is sought to add two daughters of Satya Narayan Pd. Keshari as defendant Nos. 5 and 6. By amendment No. 15, it was sought to amend paragraph 19(A) by inserting the words "declare the title of the plaintiff No. 2 over the suit property described in Schedule II of the plaint and pass a decree for bifurcation of suit property through the process of the Court" after striking off the word "bifurcate the Schedule II suit property" appearing in the first and second line of paragraph 19(A). By amendment No. 17, it was proposed to insert a relief as paragraph "C" after the existing sub paragraph (B) in Paragraph-19 of the plaint that if the plaintiffs are not found entitled to the relief of declaration of title of plaintiff No. 2 over the suit property and for bifurcation of the same then in that events preliminary decree for partition of the property described in Schedule 1 of the plaint to the extent of the share of the defendant second party be passed in favour of plaintiff No. 2 on the basis of the sale deed dated 19.3.2001 executed by the defendant second party in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and for consequential relief of partition by metes and bounds after passing the preliminary decree in favour of plaintiff No. 2.

5. After hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 19.7.2004, the amendment petition of the plaintiff petitioners was rejected stating that it is not at all possible that as many as 18 amendments in various paragraphs would arise due to typographical mistake and further that through the proposed amendment the plaintiffs have tried to deviate from their earlier relief and have wished to change the nature of the suit by making the same as partition suit in place of declaratory without showing any cause for the same.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said amendment does not change the nature of the suit and the same has only been sought in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation in the matter. It is further submitted that in view of denial of oral partition by the other defendants, the said amendments have become necessary since if the issue regarding the oral partition is not accepted then the plaintiffs-petitioners would have no o