( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs. It is stated that the petitioners havepreferred O. S. No. 152/81 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Sompeta, for perpetual injunction against the respondent in respect of open space. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed holding that the respondent- defendant is in possession of the property. It is stated that an appeal in A. S. No. 7/89 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sompeta was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners have filed LA. No. 463/94 on 4-11-1994 under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. to grant permission for the amendment of the plaint. By the amendment of the plaint, the petitioners sought recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property in the event the Court comes to conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The respondent resisted the amendment petition on the ground that the petition is not maintainable at that stage and the proposed amendment will alter the nature and scope of the suit and also cause prejudice to the respondent.

( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, considered the principle laid down in C. Venkataramana Reddy vs. N. Rajamma to the effect that "the general principle is that the power to grant amendment, the pleadings being intended to serve the ends of justice is not to be narrowly construed and should be liberally exercised unless the amendment sought would change the nature of the suit", and the scope of the suit, held that the cause of action changes if proposed amendment is permitted. He has observed that the suit was filed for mere injunction and there is no averment that from what date or time, the defendant is in unlawful possession of the property and therefore, the cause of action in a suit for recovery of possession would be different from the suit for mere injunction, and further the amendment is sought after 14 years after filing of the suit.

( 4 ) THE lower Court further held in the judgment that petitioners were not in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit and the respondent was found in possession. If the proposed amendment is permitted, the amendment dates back to the date of filing of the suit and therefore, the respondent will not be in a position to take the plea of adverse possession. He also observed that it may not be proper at this stage to state whether the possession by the respondent over the suit property from the date of filing of the suit amounts to adverse possession or not, and if it amounts to adverse possession, the petitioners must have lost the title, if any, they were having in the suit property, and if the proposed amendment is permitted, prejudice will be caused to the respondent since he cannot take the plea of adverse possession and it deprives the respondent of his right over property by adverse possession, and accordingly dismissed the petition.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners urges before me that according to the general principle of amendment of plaint, a party can amend the plaint even at the appellate stage and that the amendment of pleading should not be rejected, but granted, if the cause of action and the nature of the suit are not changed. He reiterated the judgment relied upon by the lower Court that the general principle is that the power to grant amendment to the pleadings being intended to serve the ends of justice is not to be narrowly construed but should be liberally exercised unless the amendment sought would change the nature of the suit. He submits that the amendment seeking the relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property in the event Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property will not change the nature of the suit and the respondent will not be prejudiced. He has stated that the lower Court has dismissed the a