Order Since the common question of fact and law are involved in these civil revision applications, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Defendant is the petitioner in these civil revision application which arise out of an order dated 12.5.1992 passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No. 79/91 by which the learned Munsif has refused to hold that the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the findings arrived at in Title Suit No. 133 of 1964 as well as allowed the amendment of the plaint sought for by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs opposite party filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the Kaimi occupancy raiyats with respect to the suit land pertaining to plot no. 1146 corresponding to C.S. plot no. 1008 in village Kuanil fully described in the schedule of the plaint, having a valid title and the defendent has no interest in the suit land, which was registered as title suit no. 79 of 1991. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that the disputed land exclusively belonged to Raj Darbhanga. The disputed land along with other land were sattled in favoJr of one Sir Narain Chand in the year 1941 and since then the said Sir Narain Chand was coming in possession and paying rent thereof. The plaintiffs purchased the land through registered sale deed in the year 1954 and since then the plaintiffs are coming in possession over the land in question. It in alleged that subsequently the land was partitioned according to the convenience of the other brothers. According to the said partition it is alleged that the western portion of the suit land allotted to Syamlal Mandai, Akhleshwari Mandal and Ramji Mandai and remaining eastern portion of the land pertaining to plot, in question, was allotted to Ramlal Mandai and, accordingly, they came in possession of their respective shares. Accordingly, it is alleged that the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit land. The defendant, on the other hand, claims to be rightful owner of the land, in question, by virtue of a decree obtained in earlier title suit, namely, Title Suit No. 133 of 1964. Accordingly, it is alleged that the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit land. The defendant, on the other hand, claims to be rightful owner of the land, in question, by virtue of a decree obtained in earlier title suit, namely, Title Suit No. 133 of 1964. Because of the constant threat of the defendant on the basis of the alleged decree the plaintiffs had no alternative but to file the instant suit for the reliefs, as stated above. During the pendency of the suit the defendant petitioner filed a petition purported to be under Section 11 C.P.C. with a prayer to hold that the instant suit is not maintainable as it is hit by principle of res judicata because of the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit, namely, Title suit No. 133 of 1964. The plaintiffs filed a rejoinder thereto. Similarly, the plaintiffs have also filed a petition for amendment of the plaint on filing of the petition under Section 11 C.P.C. by the defendant. Learned Munsif by the impugned order has rejected the petition filed under Section 11 C.P.C. whereas allowed the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs. Hence this civil revision application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that the earlier suit filed by the defendant petitioner was contested and was decree with respect to the same land which is the subject matter of the instant suit and, accordingly, it is submitted that the present suit is barred by principle of res judicata. Learned Counsel has also challenged the order allowing the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs in the plaint on the ground that the amendment sought for will change the nature of the suit and will amount to reviewing the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 133 of 1964. According to the learned counsel the amendment sought for is in order to circumvent the settled question that the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. 5. In opposition, learned counsel for the plaintiffs opposite party submits that the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the alleged Title Suit No. 133 of 1964. It is further submitted that the issues involved in the present suit were not involved in the earlier suit. 5. In opposition, learned counsel for the plaintiffs opposite party submits that the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the alleged Title Suit No. 133 of 1964. It is further submitted that the issues involved in the present suit were not involved in the earlier suit. Learned counsel further submits that apart from the fact that the plaintiffs were not the parties in the earlier title suit and the averments made in the earlier suit were absolutely false, fraudulent and the alleged judgment and decree were obtained by committing fraud upon the court. Similarly, learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances the amendment sought for is absolutely necessary, just and proper in order to effectively adjudicate the issues involved in the suit. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to examine the nature of the suit and the issues involved in the earlier suit tiled by the petitioner. Title suit no. 133 of 1984 was fixed for the following reliefs :- (a) That a decree for redemption of the usufructuary mortgage dated 2.8.1932 be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants and it be decreed that on the plaintiffs depositing the amount of the mortgage loan of Rs. 200/- in court in favour of the Defendants or such of them as may be held entitled, the defendants be directed to release the mortgaged property and deliver the same to the plaintiffs together with the mortgage deed and other documents relating to the suit property. (b) That then a final decree for redemption be made. (c) The costs of the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. (d) That such other or further reliefs as in the opinion of the court the plaintiffs may be held entitled to may also be granted. From perusal of the plaint of Title Suit No. 133 of 1964 and the instant suit it appears that the parties who are made defendants in Title Suit No. 133/34 are also not the same in the present suit. Cause of action of the earlier suit was entirely different than present one. It further appears that the issues involved in the earlier suit were entirely different than the issues involved in the present suit. Cause of action of the earlier suit was entirely different than present one. It further appears that the issues involved in the earlier suit were entirely different than the issues involved in the present suit. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the judgment and decree passed in the earlier title suit filed by the defendent petitioner will operate as res judicata in the instant suit. Learned counsel then submits with reference to some of the findings arrived at in the earlier suit that the title has been decided by the learned court and, as such, the case cannot be readjudicated in the present suit. As it has been stated above, the scope and the relief sought for in the earlier suit were entirely different to that of the present one and even if it is assumed that the court has casually decided the title in the earlier suit, which was not the subject matter of adjudication, will not, in any way, operate as res judicata in the present suit. As it has been stated above, earlier suit was for a decree for redemption of usufructuary mortgage after the plaintiffs depositing the amount of martgage loan and further a direction to relasee the mortgaged property in favour of the plaintiffs whereas the instant suit is a pure suit for declaration of title and confirmation of passession. That apart, the parties are also not the same and as such, it cannot be said that the earlier judgment and decree will operate as res judicata in the present suit. As regards the submission of the learned counsel that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs will amount to review of the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit and will completely change the nature of the suit are wholly misconceived and has to be rejected outright. The amendment sought for by the plaintiffs has been necessitated on introducing the record of the earlier suit by the defendants. 7. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find that the proposed amendment will either change the nature of the suit and/or in any way, will prejudice the case of the defendant. In order to avoid the multiplicity of the suit between the parties it was all the more necessary to allow the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs. 7. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find that the proposed amendment will either change the nature of the suit and/or in any way, will prejudice the case of the defendant. In order to avoid the multiplicity of the suit between the parties it was all the more necessary to allow the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material on record including the order under challenge, I do not find any illegality in the order and, accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. Consequently, these civil revision applications are dismissed. No cost.