JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is a revision against the order of the trial court dated 6-5-78 by which it cancelled the amendment application of the plaintiff. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 21-12-78 recommended for quashing the order. 2. Heard the learned counsels and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that on 13-10-65 Sugriv Singh (father of Ambika Singh etc.) filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act for declaration of sirdari right on the basis of possession. This suit was filed against Sumitra, Devi Gaon Sabha and others. On 19-10-68 a written statement was filed by Sumitra Devi and others and inter alia alleged that the plaintiff did not acquire any right and she was the sole land-holder of the land in suit. It so transpired that on 15-2-70 Smt, Sumitra Devi transferred the land in suit to Behari Singh and others, who were later on impleaded as defendants. Behari Singh and others filed written statement on 24-9-75 with a prayer that Smt. Sumitra Devi has a right to transfer the land in suit. Then the amendment application was moved by the plaintiff on 13-10-77 with a prayer that paragraphs 3Aa and 3Ba may be added after the paragraph 3 of the plaint. An objection by Behari Singh and others was filed. 4. The trial court on 6-5-78 passed by following order :- "Heard the parties, Application is allowed. Amend the plaint accordingly." The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended by his order dated 21-12-78 that this is no order in the eye of law and it should be quashed. 5. There cannot be two opinions that the aforesaid order is not happily worded order and it cannot be said to be an order based on reasons. But the case is pending since 13-10-65 and all the materials are before this court hence the objections and pleas raised by the parties can be seen here instead of remanding the case for re-hearing the application of amendment. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisional court has power to see whether the order is passed in accordance with law or not, hence in revision it can be interferred and such order should be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisional court has power to see whether the order is passed in accordance with law or not, hence in revision it can be interferred and such order should be set aside. He has further contended that if there is a inconsistency in the pleadings the same should not be allowed by way of amendment. The learned counsel for the opposite-party has contended that there was no change in the pleadings or no change of cause of action but the amendment was sought only when defendant Sumitra Devi transferred the land on 15-2-70 to other party Behari and others. 7. From the application filed on 13-10-77 it is clear that in paragraph 3 Aa it is alleged after giving some description about the status of Sarju Prasad, husband of Sumitra Devi, that Sarju Prasad died in 1937 hence his widow had only a limited interest over the land in suit and in paragraph 3 Aa it is stated that under those circumstances Sumitra Devi had no interest or right in accordance with law over the land in suit and she had no right to transfer the same. In the prayer the amendment is that the plaintiff may be declared bhumidhar of the land in suit. The objection was filed on 1-11-77 by Behari Singh and others and the contention of the learned counsel is that there is no pedigree and the claim was of sirdari" and based on adverse possession hence the amendment sought will change the nature of the suit. It is also contended by the learned counsel that by an amendment plaintiff tries to have cotenancy over the land in suit. There is no prayer or allegation that the plaintiff was a cotenant it was only sought to be made clear that the husband of the plaintiff died and at that time Sumitra Devi had only limited interest over the land in suit and therefore she could not have full fledged right to transfer the land to any person. 8. So far as the declaration of bhumidari right is concerned, it is also after the amendment in the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act when all the sirdars were declared to be bhumidhar. The change in relief has been of the declaration of bhumidhari right. 9. 8. So far as the declaration of bhumidari right is concerned, it is also after the amendment in the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act when all the sirdars were declared to be bhumidhar. The change in relief has been of the declaration of bhumidhari right. 9. Thus in my opinion, the contentions, of the learned counsel against amendment have got no weight. There is no inconsistency in the pleadings or no cause of action has changed but the amendment was only sought, when the objector Behari Singh and others have got this land transferred by Sumitra Devi. Hence these points were tried to be cleared by the amendment in the plaint. In my opinion no irreparable loss will be caused to the now contesting defendants, Behari Singh and others and the nature of the suit is not going to be changed by this amendment. The amendment has been in substance properly allowed. 10. I am unable to accept the reasoning given by the learned Additional Commissioner in the sense that the case may be remanded on this technical ground. 11. The revision is therefore dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. The suit shall be disposed of expeditiously because it is pending since 1965.