JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.7.1993 allowing the application for amendment of the pleadings. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 and other non-petitioners are real brother and sisters. The plaintiff- non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for preemption and declaration in respect of the property situate in Bandore against Tejmal, Prithvi Raj, Ugam Bai (W/o of Rooplal) and Fatehlal in respect of the property transferred by them to Fatehlal, the petitioner's uncle. In the plaint, the plaintiff had been sought the relief originally that a decree of preemption be passed in his favour and 1/4 share be declared in his favour. At a later stage, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 (sic) CPC that he may be permitted to add that the sale-deed dated 8.8.1980 executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of Fatehlal be declared null and void against the plaintiff and further that in a joint coparcenary and undivided property, 1/2 share of the plaintiff, Prithvi Raj, Ugam Bai and Tejmal had been purchased by Fatehlal and after his death, his share, whatever may be, have vested in the plaintiff, Prithvi Raj and Tejmal and as the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of ⅛ share in 1/2 share of this property and remaining ⅓ share from the property of Fatehlal having share in the disputed property in his name and in the end he wanted to amend the relief clause also that the sale-deed dated 8.8.1980 be declared null and void and the decree of cancellation of sale-deed be passed in favour of the plaintiff and further regarding the shares as explained above. The learned trial court, disallowed the amendment regarding the cancellation of the sale-deed on the ground of limitation but the further amendment sought by the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 to the extent of declaration of his share has been allowed. Hence, this revision petition. 3. The learned trial court has allowed the amendment partly considering the fact that during the pendency of the suit, the purchaser Fatehlal has died leaving behind no issue and thus the property had fallen again in the shares of the plaintiffs and defendants. Therefore, the relief sought by amendment does not change the nature of the suit and hence partly allowed. 4. Therefore, the relief sought by amendment does not change the nature of the suit and hence partly allowed. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the amendment allowed by the trial court regarding the declaration of share would definitely change the nature of the suit and such an amendment could not have been allowed for the reason that essentially suit was for pre-emption. Therefore, such an amendment was not permissible. In view of this revision deserves to be allowed. However, the learned trial court must examine the fact of the death of Fatehlal, the purchaser and devolving the property back in the share of the plaintiff and defendants as the purchaser was their uncle and died having no issue and examine as to whether the cause of action survives now. 5. Thus, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court to the extent of allowing the amendment vide order dated 22.7.1993 is set aside and the learned trial court is requested to examine as to whether after the death of Fatehlal, the purchaser, the cause of action in respect of preemption survives or not. Interim order passed by this court stands vacated. As the matter remained pending before this Court, the learned trial court is requested to decide the case expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.Revision Allowed - Order of Amendment Set Aside. *******