I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent nos.1 and 2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.3.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-3, Darbhanga in Title Appeal No.70 of 1996 by which the amendment sought in the plaint of the Title Suit No.35 of 1994 by inserting boundary of the lands described in Schedules 1 and 2, has been rejected. Short facts of this case which would be necessary for consideration of the matter are enumerated as under. The petitioner instituted Title Suit No.35 of 1994 against the respondents for following reliefs : “1. That the court be pleased to pass a decree for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit land. 2. That the court be pleased to hold and declare that the two kebalas dated 12.11.1993 in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 are fraudulent piece of documents, collusive, sham and colorable transaction and voidable one and also without consideration and the defendants did not deprive any title by virtue of the same.

3. That the court be pleased to hold and declare that the possession of defendant no.1 over Schedule-1 land is that of a tr