Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. 2. This Misc. Appeal has been preferred under Order XLIII Rule I (u) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 29.3.1993 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Title Appeal No. 129/88,. whereby and where under the order of dismissal recorded on the point of maintainability of the suit was set aside by allowing the petitioner filed by the plaintiff-appellant in that case for amendment of the plaint by adding Deputy Commissioner, Giridih as party-defendant and the case was remanded to the court below for disposal on merit. 3. A suit was filed being Title Suit No. 105/87 before the Court of Munsif, Giridih by the respondents in this appeal as plaintiff for recovery of the possession. There being a specific provisions under the C.N.T. Act for adjudication of such nature of cases in presence of the Deputy Commissioner. Objections were raised in the written Statement filed by the defendants-appellants, but it appears that the Deputy Commissioner was not made a party-defendant in the suit. Then after framing of issues in the suit, the issue of maintainability was taken up by the learned Munsif as a preliminary issue and for non adding of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih as defendant in the suit, learned Munsif dismissed the suit as being not maintainable. Against the order of dismissal, title Appeal No. 29/88 was preferred by the plaintiffs before the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, Giridih. During the pendency of the appeal, a petition was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for amendments of the plaint by adding Deputy Commissioner, Giridih as party-dependent. After hearing both the parties, that petition was allowed and in consequence of it, the dismissal order recorded by the learned Munsif towards maintainability of the suit was set aside and the whole suit was sent back on remand to the learned Munsif for disposal according to the law on merits. This has been challenged in the present appeal before this Court by the defendants-appellants. 4. Mr. This has been challenged in the present appeal before this Court by the defendants-appellants. 4. Mr. Sahani, appearing for the appellants has strenuously argued that on the ground of non joinder of Deputy Commissioner as party-defendant, the suit was rendered non maintainable and as such finding was recorded by the learned trial court and dismissed the suit as not being maintainable, there is little scope of allowing such amendment at the appellate stage as such allowance of amendment means taking away a valuable right accrued to the defendants for dismissal of the suit. 5. Mr. R.N. Sahay, appearing for the plaintiff-respondents has submitted that practically the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih is only a formal party for disposal of a dispute under the C.N.T. Act and non adding of Deputy Commissioner as party defendant rendering the suit non maintainable is due to formalities sake and not on merit. According to him, learned appellate court was right in allowing the amendment petition for formal adding of Deputy Commissioner as party-defendant in the suit. 6. In support of his contention, he has relied on -- (Sheo Prasad Santhalia and Anr. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.). The amendment in that case was also allowed at the appellate stage. 7. It is true that due to mandatory provisions of C.N.T. Act, Deputy Commissioner should be a party of the dispute and only non making of the Deputy Commissioner as party made the suit non maintainable on formal ground and not on merits. It has now become a settled provisions that amendment in the formal nature may be allowed at any stage of the suit or appeal, if the same do not change the nature of the suit. In the present case, allowance of amendment even in the appellate stage cannot be questioned but the only thing remains that for non making the Deputy Commissioner as party-defendant, the defendants had accrued a right of dismissal of the suit as recorded by the Munsif and that right has been taken away by the formal amendment by making the Deputy Commissioner as party defendant. 8. The appeal is the continuation of suit and from the nature and circumstances of the case, it shows that the amendment allowed was of a very formal nature, although, it had a vital effect in the suit itself. 8. The appeal is the continuation of suit and from the nature and circumstances of the case, it shows that the amendment allowed was of a very formal nature, although, it had a vital effect in the suit itself. There were laches on the part of the plaintiff, no doubt, in not making the Deputy Commissioner as party when specific objections were raised from the side of the defendants in the written statement. Even at the stage of hearing of the suit on preliminary issue, the plaintiff kept mum and did not come up with the amendment petition otherwise the matter would have been rested at that stage itself. 9. It appears that the learned appellate court was very much aware about the laches on the part of the plaintiff and as such while allowing the amendment, he has imposed a heavy cost against the plaintiff. The suit was never been decided on merit and practically it was at the very preliminary stage when the dismissal order was recorded and in my view, allowance of amendment which was of very formal in nature did not change the nature of the suit, although it was in the form of mandatory nature regarding adding of the Deputy Commissioner as party-defendant in the suit. 10. I do not find much force in this appeal and hence the same is rejected. No order as to costs.