JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, M. - This is a plaintiffs' revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 26.4.90 dismissing the revision against the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Class Mainpuri dated 20.2.1989 rejecting the application of the revisionist for amendment of the plaint. 2. The revisionist Ram Das and others brought a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 claiming bhumidhari rights in the disputed land. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant Jaipal and Vijai Pal denying the plaintiffs' title and possession and 10 issues were framed. Thereafter an application was moved by the plaintiff for amending the plaint with the allegation that plaintiffs have perfected this title on the basis of adverse possession as well. This amendment was contested by the defendants. 4. The trial court rejected the prayer for amendment on the ground that this amendment would change the nature of the case. A revision filed against the order was also dismissed, hence this revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the evidence of the parties had not started and powers of the court are unfettered in the matter of the amendment of the pleadings and that the amendment sought by the plaintiff did not change the nature of the case, hence the order of the courts below are unjustified and deserve to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the question of the perfection of title by adverse possession should have been mentioned in the notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, hence this amendment could not be permitted and was rightly refused. 8. In my opinion the argument advanced on behalf of the opposite parties does not have any force. If the suits had to be completely bound by the notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code then no amendment whatsoever would be possible but that is not the intention of the law. Any amendment that does not change the nature of the case can be permitted even if it does not find place in the notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code. Any amendment that does not change the nature of the case can be permitted even if it does not find place in the notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code. In the instant case evidence of the parties has not yet started and the amendment sought for is only of a formal nature, hence there was no reason to disallow the same. The courts below have not exercised their jurisdiction according to law, hence their orders deserve to be set aside and the application for amendment of the plaint deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the application for amendment of the plaint dated 28.12.88 is allowed. Let the record be sent back to the trial court to disposed it off according to law expeditiously.