JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) – VIII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Suit No.127 of 2016 whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the plaintiff in the suit and the said suit was instituted for right title and interest over the suit land and if the dispossession is found to put on the possession. He submits that in the course of the proceeding, the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 has been filed to amend the plaint to the effect in paragraph No.12 in place of sale deed No.1040 to replace from 10040 and in Schedule A of the plaint Plot No.442 sought to be replaced by 542 and further changing the area of the land from 1.42 acres to 1.10 acres in Plot No.542. He submits that is a formal amendment and the learned Court has wrongly dismissed the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that if the said amendment will be allowed then the entire nature of the suit will be changed. 5. Admittedly the nature of the suit is made for right title and interest over the suit land and the amendment was sought to change the sale deed number as well as plot number and the area which clearly suggests that if the amendment will be allowed then the entire nature of the suit will be changed. There is no illegality in the order of the learned Court, as such this petition is dismissed.