JUDGMENT P.K. DEB, J. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 27.5.1997 passed by the Munsif-Ist, Begusarai, in title Suit no. 101 of 1994 where by the amendment prayed for by the plaintiffs vide their petition dated 25.4.1996 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendants. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants illegally by encroachment constructed wall over 5 dhoors of land in plot no. 598 belonging to the plaintiffs. This tracing of title was made by the plaintiffs in different paragraphs of the plaint. This tracing of the title of the plaintiffs and their right, title and interest over the suit land have been denied in the written statement filed by the defendants. On 19.1.1996 a prayer was made for amendment of the plaint but the same was afterwards withdrawn. Then subsequently the plaintiffs filed the present amendment petition on 25.4.1996. In the amendment sought for the plaintiffs wanted to add a fresh paragraph 1 (a) for inclusion of the genealogical table to show genesis of acquisition of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Another amendment was sought for, for inclusion of a fresh paragraph 4(a) in the plaint, and also for adding a further relief in the prayer portion as paragraph 10 (a) (i) in the plaint. In that relief it was sought for declaration that the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit no. 48 of 1995 and the proceedings of Title Execution no. 13 of 1995 are null and void. In earlier paragraphs of the amendment sought it was mentioned that Title Suit no. 48 of 1995 was filed by the defendant petitioner Shrimod Singh against another and collusive decree was obtained and by showing execution case delivery of possession was being shown in his favour and the plaintiffs after knowing the same has sought for inclusion of the same in the present suit. 3. Learned court below after considering the amendments sought for allowed the same without considering the other amendment regarding genealogical table given in para-1 (a) in the petition wherein amendment was sought for. 3. Learned court below after considering the amendments sought for allowed the same without considering the other amendment regarding genealogical table given in para-1 (a) in the petition wherein amendment was sought for. It was held by the learned court below that the proposed amendment at paras-4(a) and 10 (a) (1) did not change the nature of the suit and as such the same can be included as the same only gives an explanation regarding the acquisition of title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. 4. The main objection of the opposite parties regarding allowance of the amendment is to the effect that the earlier suit was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs and its execution thereof. But the same was never incorporated in the plaint earlier and as such the amendment sought for belatedly ought to have been rejected. The second ground was that if the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land of Title Suit no. 48 of 1995 then in the execution proceeding they ought to have moved under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure after creating obstructions in the same. There cannot be any fresh suit for declaration of the decree to be filed. In this respect 1992 (2) PLJR 805 (Abdul Bari vs. Anisual Rahman & another) has been referred to and also 1990 NOC Andhra Pradesh 123 (pavan Kumar & another vs. K. Gopalkrishna & another). 5. I do not find much relevancy of these judgments in the present circumstances of the case. It is true that by amendment of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was mentioned that enquiry under those provisions would avoid fresh suit but if no such petition has been filed and no enquiry was held under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure then there remains no bar in coming up for a suit for declaration of the decree as void. On the other hand, reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1996 (3) see 154 (Babulal vs. Raj Kumar and Ors.). The procedure laid down under Order 21 Rules 98-103 was said to be a complete. On the other hand, reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1996 (3) see 154 (Babulal vs. Raj Kumar and Ors.). The procedure laid down under Order 21 Rules 98-103 was said to be a complete. Code in itself but nowhere it has been held that when that procedure has not been chosen to by the stranger he would be barred from filing a suit for declaring the decree as void and inoperative. 6. Learned court below considered the matter in its proper perspective and then allowed the amendment prayed for but for the laches as there was delay a cost of Rs. 60/- has been imposed on the plaintiffs-opposite parties. I do not find that any illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned court below in allowing the amendment petition and hence the revision petition has got no force. Regarding genealogical table it appears that the same has not been stated in specific words but the petition as a whole was allowed then amendment was allowed and as such the inclusion of genealogical table in the plaint as para-1 (a) was also allowed. The revision petition does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity or impropriety. Although the order is a cryptic one, I do not find any ground to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence the revision petition is rejected but no order as to costs.