JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 11.1.91 passed in revision under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Khalilabad, district Basti dated 9.7.90 in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Two suits were filed in the trial court one by Smt. Malti Devi against the same property. Suit No. 120/113 was filed by Ganesh Prasad. This suit was filed on 3.3.93. He claimed that he is bhumidhar of the suit plot along with defendants 24, 25 and 26 i.e., Matadin Deotadin and Sunder. In the suit of Smt. Malti Devi, Ganesh Prasad appeared and filed his written statement on 19.11.83 in which he pleaded that Smt. Ramraji who was admittedly the original tenant of the suit plots have executed a Will in his favour on 2.6.69, hence he is entitled to inherit Smt. Ramraji Devi. He moved the application for impleadment on 19.11.83. That application was accepted on 8.4.87 on payment of cost of Rs. 10/-. Ganesh Prasad moved an application on 19.11.83 in his own suit to amend the plaint that he has acquired the land on the basis of Will deed dated 2.6.68. This application was opposed and the amendment application was dismissed on 25.7.89. Against that order review application was filed. The trial court set aside its own order dated 25.7.1989 and allowed the amendment application on payment of costs of Rs. 100/- on 9.7.90. Against that order revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner which was dismissed on 11.1.91, hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that by amending the plaint the nature of the suit has been changed. He also argued that when the amendment application was rejected it should not have been allowed again by the trial court. The learned counsel also argued that the alleged Will is said to be dated 2.6.68. The disputed plot has been shown after that in 1970 to Smt. Malti Devi and others, hence it is the sale-deed which will prevail over the Will deed. The learned counsel also argued that the alleged Will is said to be dated 2.6.68. The disputed plot has been shown after that in 1970 to Smt. Malti Devi and others, hence it is the sale-deed which will prevail over the Will deed. If the sale-deed is proved to be valid it means the Will deed which was prior is automatically revoked. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that in the suit of Smt. Malti Devi Ganesh Prasad has put up his plea that he has acquired the suit plot on the basis of Will deed, hence his plaint was essential to be amended as there was already indication shown in his plaint. 6. Now it is important to consider whether the nature of the suit has been changed by allowing the amendment application? The suit of Ganesh Prasad was for declaration of co-bhumidhari along with defendants No. 24, 25 and 26 excluding others. These defendants have appeared in the suit and have filed written statement admitting the plaint. There has been no prayer to struck of their name and to claim the relief for sole bhumidhari by the plaintiff Ganesh Prasad. The name of those defendants still exist in the plaint, Now the main question remains when the suit was filed against these defendants also whether they can be excluded from the suit by amending the plaint, although no steps has been taken by the plaintiff Ganesh Prasad of that suit, therefore, his suit as amended have become defective. The nature of the suit has been changed from co-bhumidhari to that of the sole bhumidhari, therefore, the amendment allowed by the trial court have changed the nature of the suit, therefore, it is illegal. The trial court has passed that order illegally with material irregularity in the exercise of its power. Hence the revision is allowed and the order of the lower appellate court dated 11.1.91 as well as trial court doted 9.7.90 are set.