The proposed amendments did not change the subject matter or nature of the suit, and therefore, were allowed by the court.

1. I.A. No. 4098 of 2004 has been filed for condonation of delay of more than 9 months in filing the present civil revision application. It is stated that earlier the petitioners had filed Civil Revision No. 1125/2003 which was directed against the order dated 7.7.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 30/2000 by which two petitions filed by the petitioners on 26.3.2003 and 23.6.2003 for amendment of plaint had been partly rejected and when the matter was heard by this Court at the stage of admission on 15.7.2004 it was held that orders passed jointly on two petitions cannot be challenged in a single civil revision application and accordingly the petitioners were permitted to confine that civil revision only to that part of the order which was with respect to amendment petition dated 26.3.2003 and they were given liberty to file another civil revision with respect to the other part of the said order which relates to the petition dated 23.6.2003. On the basis of the said liberty the present civil revision application has been filed and the reason for delay has thus been well explained.

2. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the civil revision application is condoned and I.A. No. 4098 of 2004 is accordingly allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Ratan Deep Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

4. The petitioners have filed the present revision application against the order dated 7.7.2003 passed by Munsif-I, Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No. 30/2000 by which the amendment petition dated 23.6.2003 has been partly rejected. By the said amendment petition the petitioners had proposed as many as seven amendments but except for the first two amendments, amendment nos. 3 to 7 have been rejected by the trial court on the ground that since the earlier amendment petition dated 26.3.2003 has been rejected therefore, the proposed amendment nos. 3 to 7 being based upon the said previous amendment petition dated 26.3.2003, the same cannot be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rejection of the amendment petition dated 26.3.2003 was challenged by the petitioners in C.R. No. 1125/ 2003 and by order dated 30.6.2005 read with the order of modification dated 16.8.2005, the amendment petition dated 26.3.2003 has been allowed. For the said reasons, it is stated that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order dated 7.7.2003 for rejecting the proposed amendment nos. 3 to 7 of the amendment petition dated 23.6.2003 have become non est and for the said reasons alone it is a fit case for allowing the said amendment application.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand, opposed the same stating that it would change the nature of the case as the plot nos. are also sought to be changed by the said amendments by deleting the earlier paragraph-8 and adding a fresh paragraph in its place in the plaint and also by other consequential amendments proposed.

7. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party does not appear to be correct. A certified copy of the plaint has been produced by the learned counsel for the opposite party from perusal of which it is evident that the disputed area of land continues to be 9 dhurs of land out of the 8 decimals of land which from the very beginning the plaintiff-petitioners claim to have received on the basis of a deed of exchange dated 7.8.1911 and even now it is said that 9 dhurs of land, lying to the south of plot no. 5376 belonging to the plaintiff-petitioners and in the north of plot no. 5375 belonging to the defendant-opposite party, continues to be the disputed subject-matter of the title suit and only the description with respect to said 9 dhurs of land and its getting amalgamated with the lands of the defendants is sought to be corrected in order to make it totally clear and remove the vagueness that existed. Since the subject-matter of the disput