Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff-O.Ps. 2. By the impugned order dated 25.7.2003 the learned Munsif-3rd, Patna, dismissed the petition of the defendant for amendment of his written statement filed in Eviction Suit No. 18/99. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he sought amendment in his written statement only to give geneology of the family because all the parties to the suit were of the same family and there were some other members also belonging to the family and connected with the suit property. According to him, the amendment sought was simple in nature and in any view of the matter issues were just framed and hearing of the suit has not yet started, hence, as per the provision of Order-VI, Rule-17 C.P.C. even after its amendment his petition would have been allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the Opposite parties vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the suit was only for eviction of the defendant-petitioner who was none else than the son of the plaintiffs-Opposite parties and he was trying to raise the question of title by introducing geneological table in his pleading which would complicate the issues and change the nature of the suit. The learned counsel for the Opposite parties further stated that after the recent amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Civil Revision is not maintainable as no lis has been decided by the impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, I find that the question of title is invariably connected with the question of eviction and the same has to be considered by the learned trial court if there is any denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and hence the amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner can not be said to be irrelevant. I also find that by refusing the amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner, the lis which has to be decided in the suit is definitely going to be affected and hence this Civil Revision is maintainable and the learned court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law by refusing the amendment sought as the trial of the suit has also not yet started. 6. 6. In the result, this Civil Revision is allowed. The impugned order of the learned court below is hereby set aside and the learned trial court is directed to permit the defendant to amend his pleading accordingly in the written statement.