1. I.A. No. 13 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioners for expunging the name of Opposite Party No. 6 Md. Tauhid from the record of this case as he had died on 5.3.2002 much before the filing of this civil revision. The said Opposite Party No. 6 was a defendant in Title Suit No. 44 of 1988, out of which this civil revision has arisen, but he had neither filed his written statement, nor was contesting the suit. In the said circumstances, the said interlocutory application is allowed. Let the name of Opposite Party No. 6 be expunged.

2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging order dated 20.10.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge 9, Gopalganj, dismissed their petition for amendment of plaint in Title Suit No. 44 of 1998.

3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioners for declaration that the suit properties described in Schedule I of the plaint belonged to Plaintiffs 1st and 2nd Parties under the Hindu Religious Trust and also that the defendants had no right to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by defendants no. 1, 3 and 6, out of whom defendant no. 3 has died, whereas defendant nos. 1 and 6 are Opposite Parties No. 1 and 5 in the instant civil revision who filed their written statement and contested the suit. After the pleading was complete, issues were framed by the learned court below and evidence was led on behalf of both the parties and were closed, whereafter the suit was fixed for arguments. At that time the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a petition dated 31.7.2006 (Annexure-2) under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) for the following amendments in the plaint:

(i) In para no. 19 of this plaint, the following sentences be added in the 7th line of the said paragraph: "From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs have acquired easementary right by being in possession since more than several 12 years."

(ii) That in paragraph no. 1 of the relief, the following line be added: "It also be declared that the plaintiffs have acquired easementary right in the disputed land."

4. Defendant Nos. 3 and 6 opposed the said petition for amendment of the plaint, whereafter the said petition was dismissed by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 20.10.2006 against which the instant civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners. However, during the pendency of this civil revision further proceeding of the aforesaid title suit was stayed by this court vide order dated 5.4.2007.

5. Now two points arise for consideration in the instant case, namely (i) as to whether the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code as amended would be applicable to the aforesaid suit which was filed much before the said amendment came into force, and (ii) as to whether the plaintiffs having claimed the relief of declaration of title in the plaint can be legally allowed to add by way of amendment a relief of declaration of easementary right over the suit land which is in complete contradiction to the original relief of declaration of title.

6. So far first point is concerned, the original provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code read as follows:

"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties."

7. The said provision of the Code was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (XXII of 2002) which was brought into force from 1st July, 2002 vide Government Notification No. S.O. 604(E), dated 6th June, 2002 and which read as follows:

"Order VI Rule 17. Amendment of pleadings.The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his plead