JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - In this writ application challenge has been made to the order dated 5.4.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No. 407/118 of 2000/85 wherein the court below has allowed the Plaintiffs' application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the amendments sought were formal in nature and would not change the nature and character of the suit, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 250/- to the Defendant as it was sought at a belated stage. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Defendant No. 1 is the Petitioner. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 as the Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 15.7.1985 was inoperative and not binding on them on the ground that Sarafat, the father of the Petitioner relinquished his share measuring an area Ac.0. l0.2/3 decimal of land in Sabik Plot No. 1920 corresponding to Half Plot No. 1527 in their favour. The Plaintiffs specifically claimed that Ac.0.48 dec. of land in Sabik Plot No. 1920 (Half Plot No. 1527) which belonged to one Saheb Ali Khan and Hasrat Bibi by way of partition and transactions, are to be divided among their sons and daughters for which the share of Sarafat would be only Ac.0.10.2/3 dec. and not Ac.0.13 dec. According to the Plaintiffs, Sarafat relinquished Ac.0.10.2/3 dec. in their favour. Admittedly the disputed property relating to Sabik Plot No. 1920 under Sabik Khata No. 9", under Mouza Mukundadaspur corresponds to Half Plot No. 1527 measuring an area Ac.0.52 dec. The said property was recorded in the name of one Mahatab, who had three sons, namely, Fakir and Amir. Fakir had two sons, namely, Saheb Ali, Ajij and Masud and Amir had one son, namely, Jamir, who died leaving behind his son Saukat Ali Khan as his legal heir. In the year 1947, a partition was effected between the two branches and registered partition deed No. 9", dated 3.2.1947 was executed between Saukat Ali Khan and Saheb AlE Khan, Abdul Ajij and Masud, sons of Fakir Khan. In the said partition deed, the plot in question fell to the share of the branch of Fakir Khan; they were Saheb Ali Khan, Abdul Ajij and Masud and each of them got Ac.17.1/3 dec. of land out of the area Ac.0.52 dec. In the said partition deed, the plot in question fell to the share of the branch of Fakir Khan; they were Saheb Ali Khan, Abdul Ajij and Masud and each of them got Ac.17.1/3 dec. of land out of the area Ac.0.52 dec. On the basis of such partition, Abdul Ajij gave his share to his daughter Taharun Bibi by a registered deed of Gift dated 27.1.1953 and Taharun Bibi by virtue of registered sale deed No. 8042 dated 3.12.1962 transferred her entire share Ac.0.171 / 3 dec. of land in favour of Hasrat Bibi, wife of Saheb Ali Khan. Hasrat Bibi in turn sold the area of 1\c.0.04 dec. in Sabik Plot No. 1920 to her daughter Nuran ' Nurjahan by a registered deed. Masud relinquished/exchanged Plot No. 1920 in favour of Saheb Ali Khan and left the balance and took Plot Nos. 1497 & 1496 measuripg an area Ac.0.18 dec. and Ac.0.05 dec. respectively from Saheb AlE Khan. By that time Ajij was dead. Saheb Ali Khan and his wife Hasrat Bibi became the exclusive owners in possession of Ac.0.48 dec. of land pertaining to Sabik Plot No. 1920 and they died leaving behind three sons and four daughters. Their daughters by way of custom and convention after their marriage were not allotted or claimed any share. Therefore, three sons of Saheb Ali Khan got Ac.0.16 dec. of land each. Sarafat Ali, son of Allik Khan transferred Ac.0.13 dec. of land by virtue of registered sale deed No. 5739 dated 15.7.1985 in favour of the Petitioner and delivered the possession thereof. The purchased property had already been mutated in favour of the purchaser, the Petitioner. The Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. ll8 of 1985-1 before the learned Sub-Judge, Bhubaneswar and their main contention was that Sarafat relinquished his share measuring Ac.0.10.2/3 dec. of land in Half Plot No. 1527 corresponding to Sabik Plot No. 1920 in their favour. They claimed that Ac.0.48 dec. of land in Sabik Plot No. 1920 (Half Plot No. 1527) and left the balance. Therefore, they challenged the sale deed dated 15.7.1985 that Sarafat had no interest in the land to alienate Ac.0.13 dec. The Defendant Petitioner after notice appeared in the suit and filed his written statement in the year 1989. Both the suits were filed in the year 1985. Therefore, they challenged the sale deed dated 15.7.1985 that Sarafat had no interest in the land to alienate Ac.0.13 dec. The Defendant Petitioner after notice appeared in the suit and filed his written statement in the year 1989. Both the suits were filed in the year 1985. While the matter stood thus, the Plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC on 29.1.1998, after more than 13 years, for amendment of the plaint. By way of amendment, they wanted to add new parties and delete some paragraphs and to insert some new paragraphs which would completely change the nature and character of the suit. They also sought amendment of the plaint regarding the area of disputed property, i.e., from Ac.O.10.2j3 dec. to Ac.2.664 dec. A new paragraph they wanted to add in the- prayer portion of the plaint that the ROR published in 1928-29 and ROR of 1981 Sabik Plot No. 1920 corresponding to Half Plot No. 1527 stood recorded in the names of Taharun Bibi, Abdul Sayed Khan and Saukat Ali Khan along with the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 for which Taharun Bibi, Abdul Sayed Khan and Saukat Ali Khan were made as proforma Defendants in the plaint but no relief was sought against them and further to declare that Defendant No. 1 had no right to disturb the possession of the Plaintiffs. The present Petitioner filed his objection and specifically stating therein that the application for amendment of the plaint having been filed at a belated stage after 13 years of the filing of the plaint, should not be entertained. It was only to harass the Defendants by prolonging the litigation and it would change the very nature and character of the suit and the admission made by the Plaintiffs would be taken away by way of amendment. The Plaintiffs now changed the disputed area by withdrawing the admission they made earlier. As such, Defendant No. 1 was highly prejudiced and grave injustice would be caused to him if such amendment was allowed. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) without discussing anything in the impugned order and by observing that the amendment was formal in nature, allowed the amendment subject to payment of cost of Rs. 250 / -. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 25/23 of 20001/2000 before the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) without discussing anything in the impugned order and by observing that the amendment was formal in nature, allowed the amendment subject to payment of cost of Rs. 250 / -. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 25/23 of 20001/2000 before the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar. Relying on the decision reported in 96 (2003) CLT 201 Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society v. Swarai Developers and Ors., the court below rejected the said revision on the ground that the impugned order being interlocutory in nature, the revision was not maintainable. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the apex Court has rendered the decision in the case of Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society (supra) taking into consideration the amendment of the CPC in the year 2002 and she further stated that a revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order. Therefore; the Petitioner has filed the writ application. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that if the amendment sought for by the Plaintiffs is allowed to stand, it would change the nature and character of the suit and also the admission made by the Plaintiffs in the plaint earlier would be withdrawn and the amendment would cause grave injustice to the present Petitioner-defendant No. 1 because earlier the Plaintiffs admitted that Defendant No. 1 purchased an area of Ac.0.13 dec. of land but now by way of amendment the said admission would be substituted by stating that the vendor of Defendant No. 1 is only entitled to Ac.0.02.66 dec. of land. They wanted to delete the earlier pleadings by substituting new one. He further submitted that the admission earlier made by the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment and they have challenged the sale deed dated 15.7.1985. By way of amendment, they raised a new plea and as the said new plea was raised challenging the sale deed more than three years after from the date of the sale, it was barred by limitation and the same should not have been allowed. In support of her contention she cited the decisions reported in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co. Biswanath Panigrahi and Others Vs. Sri Sri Sri Jaganath Swami Mohaprabhu Bize, & Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal and Others. In support of her contention she cited the decisions reported in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co. Biswanath Panigrahi and Others Vs. Sri Sri Sri Jaganath Swami Mohaprabhu Bize, & Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal and Others. So far as limitation is concerned, she cited the decision reported in Kisan Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Paper Mills and Others, . 5. The settled principles are that the amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed (a) if it completely alters the nature of the suit; (b) when the amendment is not necessary for the parties for determining the real questions in the controversy between the parties; (c) if the amendment wholly displaced the Plaintiff's suit. In the present case, by way of amendment after 13 years of filing the suit the Plaintiffs wanted to displace their suit by changing the nature and character of the suit. Those amendments were not necessary for determining the real questioning in the controversy between the parties. 6. In the case of Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham of Bombay and Others the apex Court held that where the Plaintiffs made out a new case for which there was no basis in the plaint as it originally stood, there is strong ground for rejecting amendment. Therefore, the same should not be allowed. In the present case, in view of the aforesaid decision of the apex Court as well as other High Courts, as the amendment, if allowed to stand, amounts to displace the Plaintiffs' case put-forth earlier and it will cause grave injustice to the Defendants, this Court sets aside the order dated 504.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in T.S. No A07/118 of 2000/85 as it approached the question in dispute in an improper manner. Therefore, the findings given by it cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction and it is, therefore, amenable to correction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (See Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, 7. The writ application is accordingly allowed. No costs. Final Result : Allowed