Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. The present revision-application is directed against the order dated 22.2.94 passed by the 5th Subordinate Judge, Arrah in T. S. No.188/93 where by the Court has refused the prayer or the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The said suit has been instituted by the petitioner for declaration of his title over the entire suit property and also for a declaration that the sale-deeds dated 9.10.82 executed Ram Ekbal Pandey and dated 14.9.83 executed by Ramrati kuer in favour of the defendant in respect of the property detailed in schedules II and III, respectively of the plaint are illegal, void and inoperative and not binding on him. Further, the petitioner has also sought for a decree of recovery of possession to the property detailed in Schedule IV of the plaint. 2. The petitioner seems to have filed the suit claiming to be the adopted son of Ram Ekbal Pandey and it was specifically pleaded by him that his date of birth was 23.12.1978, on the basis of which he was admittedly minor in July, 1993 when the suit was instituted. After the issue of summons the defendant opposite party appeared in the said suit whereafter, a petition under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. read with Sec.151, C. P. C. was filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the aforementioned date of birth by deleting 23.12.1978 as the date of birth from paragraph 7 of the plaint and substituting 23.12.72 in its place. 3. A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the opposite party to the said amendment petition and after hearing the parties me prayer for amendment has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. From perusal of the said Order, however, it appears that the Court rejected the prayer on the basis of his personal assessment of the age of the plaintiff, who was personally present and on that basis, held that there is no typing mistake in the plaintiffs date of birth given in the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has acted illegally in recording the finding about the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of his personal assessment and thereby entering into the merit of the case in order to test the falsity or truth of the aforesaid amendment, which is not permissible in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has acted illegally in recording the finding about the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of his personal assessment and thereby entering into the merit of the case in order to test the falsity or truth of the aforesaid amendment, which is not permissible in law. It was further contended that the amendment sought for was formal in nature and the same does not change the cause of action or the nature of the suit. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff was filed when he realised that the suit, which was not filed through any next friend, which was a mandatory requirement of Order xxxii, C. P. C. , and for which reason, the plaint was liable to be taken of only with a view to get rid of the fatal lacuna. According to the learned counsel for the opposite party, the plaintiff has tried to introduce altogether a new story that the real date of birth was 23.12.72. It has further been contended that the plaintiff in his rejoinder filed on 21.2.94 which was duly verified under his signature. A photo copy whereof has been annexed as annexure "a" to the petition filed by the defendant under Order IX, Rule 9 of the C. P. C. admitted that he was minor on 8.5.92, and thus, it is clear that on his own admission made in his rejoinder-petition he is stopped from asserting that he was major on the date of institution of the suit. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which it is stated that from perusal of the entire facts as stated in annexure "a" to the counter-affidavit, it is manifest that conclusion of the facts stated in the application is that the petitioner was major at the time of institution of the suit in question and in page No.10 at one place it was by mistake typed as "nabalik" in place of "balik" by the typist. 6. 6. From reading of the impugned order it appears that the learned sub-Judge has based his order solely on the ground of personal assessment of the age of the plaintiff and on that basis alone has held that the plaintiffs date of birth given in the plaint as 22.12.78 is correct and that there is no typing mistake. 7. In my opinion, this is not permissible as it is well settled that the court should not go into the merit of the proposed amendment, as this is bound to affect the ultimate decision in the suit. Here in the instant case, the Court has recorded a finding about the date of birth of the petitioner depriving him of the opportunity of leading evidence in support of his claim regarding the actual date of his birth. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Revision Allowed