JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the order dated 11.11.1994 passed by Shri A.K. Paliwal, Civil Judge Class II, Ambah. This revision has arisen out of the following facts. - A suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 against the present revisionists and respondents 2 to 5 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction with respect to agricultural land situate in village Gopi, Tehsil Ambah. Plaintiff claimed that 2/3rd share was recorded in the name f Madan Mohan who died issueless. He had executed a will in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 moved an application purporting to be u/O. 11 Rules 12 and 14 CPC alleging that there was no will in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff wanted to prepare a forged will. A direction was sought to the effect that the plaintiff be directed to produce the will. On 17.6.1981 the plaintiff disclosed that he did not possess any will. On 3.5.1987, the plaintiff further conceded that he did not intend to produce any will. Thereafter in the year 1994 an application for amendment of the plaint was moved by the plaintiff which has been allowed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that this amendment was mala fide inasmuch as the plaintiff wanted to produce the alleged will which must have been prepared later on; as he specifically declared earlier on 17.6.1981 and 3.5.1987 that he had no will and did not want to produce any will, the learned counsel alleged that through backdoor now the plaintiff wants to produce that will and with this aim he has sought this amendment. He relied on the case of Kehar Singh v. Durjan Singh & others, 1975 JLJ SN 64. Leaned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the amendment has been allowed and has been incorporated and the defendants also made consequential amendment in the written statement. Learned counsel relied on AIR 1983 SC 462 wherein an amendment through which an admission was sought to be withdrawn was allowed. The trial Court held while allowing the amendment that it was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. High Court interfered in revision and the Supreme Court held that interference was not justified. Similarly in Maitreyee Banerjee v. Prabir Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 17 , amendment of plaint was allowed, the amendment was not barred by limitation. The trial Court held while allowing the amendment that it was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. High Court interfered in revision and the Supreme Court held that interference was not justified. Similarly in Maitreyee Banerjee v. Prabir Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 17 , amendment of plaint was allowed, the amendment was not barred by limitation. It was found that no irreparable injury or injustice was caused to the non-petitioner and there was no jurisdictional error involved, the High Court in exercise of its power of revision should not have interfered with the order allowing the amendment. In the present case, no doubt it is true that the plaintiff made specific averment in the plaint that there was a will in his favour and when the defendants sought order directing the plaintiff to produce the will, no will was produced and it was stated that there was no will with the plaintiff. Again it was given before the Court that the plaintiff will not file any will, but now the plaintiff has sought this amendment which has been allowed. The defendants have also made consequential amendment in their written statement. Under these circumstances, and also in view of the fact that the trial Court has mentioned that the amendment was necessary for disposal of the case, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this revision from this Court. It is, however, observed that the effect of non-production of the document as requested by the defendant; and the fact that the plaintiff has stated that he had no will and he will not produce any will must have a bearing upon the authenticity of the will now alleged. With this observation, this revision petition is dismissed.