ORDER : This Civil Revision application by the defendants-petitioners is directed against the ORDER :dated 27.4.1998 passed by the IVth Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga, in Title suit no. 98 of 1986 by which he has allowed the amendment petition of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. 2. The plaintiffs Opposite parties filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession by ejecting the defendants therefrom and also for realisation of arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioner by filing written statement denying and disputing the title of the plaintiffs in the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under ORDER :VI, rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and prayed for amendment of the plaint. By the proposed amendment the plaintiffs wanted to add some more person in the array of defendants. The plaintiffs further wanted to add some more acts in paragraphs 7, 13, 16 and 23 and further to add paragraph 26A in the plaint. From perusal of the amendment petition, it appears that the plaintiffs have also challenged the sale deed executed by the defendants some time in the year 1992 and 1993. The court below after considering the amendment petition and the rejoinder came to the following conclusion : "I have perused the entire record and I find that the suit is at the early stage of the hearing and the plaintiff wants to bring some facts. The contentions of the defendants that the present amendment petitions have been filed at the belated stage is convincing but on this score only the amendment petition cannot be rejected. The amendment petition will certainly affect the defence in his earlier defence taken in the written statement but the defendants will certainly be given an opportunity to file additional W.S., if any." On the basis of the aforementioned conclusion the court below allowed the amendment. 3. From perusal of the impugned ORDER :I am of the view that the court below in allowing the amendment petition has not considered the question as to whether the amendment sought for will change the nature and character of the suit or that the amendment sought for is barred under any of the provision of the law of limitation. This matter, therefore, requires reconsideration by the court below. 4. This matter, therefore, requires reconsideration by the court below. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, this application is allowed, the impugned ORDER :is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction to pass a fresh ORDER :on the amendment petition after hearing the parties and after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Radhika Devi vs. Raj Rangi Singh. ( AIR 1996 S.C. 2358 ).