Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The predecessor of the petitioners was defendant of Eviction Suit No. 89 of 1989 which was filed by the Opposite Party for eviction of the original petitioner (Defendant). 3. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 20.4.1999 passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Munsif, Nawadah, allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff opposite party under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity) for amendment of the plaint. 4. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed as far back as in 1989 whereafter ssues were framed on 3.7.1996 in which issue numbers 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 read as ollows: lssues: (6) Has the plaintiff filed title suit in form of eviction suit? (9) Has the plaintiff got title over suit property? (10) Has the defendant got title and independent possession over suit prop erty? (11) Is the plaintiff required to frame the suit as a regular title suit on payment of ad valorem Court fee on market value of suit land? (12) Was the land of plot no. 366 purchased by Bibi Moina Khatoon in the name of Dr. Manzoor Ahmad on 1.5.1947? 5. It is also not in dispute that thereafter hearing of the suit started and evidence of both the parties were closed and during the argument the aforesaid amendment petition was filed on 5.4.1999 which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 20.4.1999 holding that such amendment would avoid multiplicity of suit otherwise plaintiff will have to bring a fresh suit for title. 6. From the amendment sought it is quite apparent that the plaintiff wanted amendment in several paragraphs regarding facts and also an amendment in the relief portion seeking alternatively a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises on the basis of the title of the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the said suit has in fact become a suit for declaration for title also. 7. In the said circumstances, the said suit has in fact become a suit for declaration for title also. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly this Civil Revision is dismissed, with a direction to the learned court below to give a chance of rebuttal with respect to the amended claim of the plaintiff regarding ejectment on the basis of title of the plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original owner as claimed by him was a necessary party to the suit. However, whether the said person is a necessary party to the suit has to be seen by the learned court below, according to its own merit when such a person files a petition in the court below for the said purpose.