9 Be that as itmay, as per the petitioner,his claim for perpetual injunctionwas against the respondent Nos'1 and 2 from interferencewith his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduleproperty. The attendingcircumstancesare demonstrating thatthe defence/stance of the respondent Nos'1 and 2 in the suitnever promptedthe revision petitionersto seek the relief ofdeclaration of title and cancellation,thoughthe gift deeds of therespondent Nos'3 to 5 are of the year 2015' Howsoever, thesefacts are revealing that even as per the revisionpetitioner/plaintiffthere is no dispute as to the title over the suit schedulepropertybetween the revision petitionerand the respondentNos.1 and 2 and the respondent Nos'3 to 5 are only successors ininterest- ln this undisputedposition' if the revision petitioner/plaintiffis able to prove the suit claim against respondent Nos.1and 2 it would havea consequentialeffect on the claims of therespondent Nos.3to 5' ln that view' at the fag end of the trial, therevision petitionercomingup with an $pplicationseeking amendmentand changingthe suit causeby
