Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Bhupendra Narain Singh on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Sudhir Kumar appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 only. In spite of service of notice, the other respondents have not put their appearance.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 18.07.2008 passed by Sub Judge I, Biharsharif, Nalanda in title suit no.131 of 2000 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint seeking for recovery of possession of the suit premises.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforesaid title suit for declaration of title and thereafter filed the application for amendment in the plaint for adding a prayer for recovery of possession of the suit property. By the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the said prayer on the ground that the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has not been complied with by the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for the relief claimed in amendment in the plaint. Accor