Short Note : 1. The material facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly are as follows. The plaintiff applicant and non-applicant No-4 have instituted a suit against non-applicants No. 1 to 3 for possession of a plot of land. The suit is resisted by the defendant non-applicants 1 to 3 inter alia on the ground that as the plaintiffs have failed to claim the relief of declaration of their title to the suit land the suit for possession is not competent. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application I, A. II dated 24-11-1975 under Order 6, rule 17, CPC for grant of leave to amend the plaint so as to include the relief of declaration of their title to the suit land. The application was opposed by non-applicants 1 to 3. The trial Court by its impugned order held that by the proposed amendment, nature of the suit would be changed and in this view of the matter the application for leave to amend the plaint was rejected. Aggrieved by that order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the defendant non-applicant was unable to point out any reason for holding that the proposed amendment if allowed would change the nature of the suit instituted by the plaintiffs. By the proposed amendment the plaintiffs were claiming the relief of declaration of their title to the suit land in addition to the relief of possession which they had already claimed. In rejecting the application for amendment, on a ground which is untenable in law the trial Courts has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. However, as there has been delay in seeking leave to amend the plaint, it is but proper that the application should be allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 50/- payable to the defendants. Revision allowed.