This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 3-12-2003 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A. NO.533 of 2003 in O.S. NO.204 of 1990.

2. One Sri Lakshminarayana, the husband of the second petitioner and the father of petitioners 3 to 11 filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, admeasuring 125 square yards. On account of the death of the original plaintiff, the petitioners herein were brought on record as legal representatives. On an earlier occasion, the suit was dismissed on a preliminary issue. Petitioners filed A.S. NO.28 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Warangal, against the dismissal of the suit. The appeal was allowed on 19-5-2003, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. The respondent filed SA No.643 of 2003 before this Court. The judgment of the lower appellate Court was affirmed, but certain directions were issued to the trial Court in the matter of disposal of the suit.

3. Petitioners filed I.A. NO.533 of 2003 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amendment of the plaint. Their contention was that on account of the fact that they came on record at a later point of time, certain facts needed to be elaborated. The plaint was sought to be amended mainly on two aspects, viz., substitution of the paragraph relating to the cause of action, and description of the property. It was urged that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the respondent acquired right in respect of 41.2 square yards out of the suit schedule property, in pursuance of a decree in O.S. No.543 of 1984. So far as the cause of action is concerned, it was urged that the disposal of O.S. NO.585 of 1982, on the file of the Court of II Additional District Munsif, on 31-3-1989, gives rise to it, but not the dispossession of the original plaintiff by the respondent herein, as pleaded in the original plaint.

4. Through its order, dated 3-12-2003, the trial Court allowed the interlocutory application partly, to the extent of the suit schedule property, but rejected the plea of the petitioners for substitution of the paragraph dealing with cause of action. Hence, this revision.

5. Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the cause of action now pleaded by the petitioners is nothing but an elaboration of what was pleaded originally, and that the trial Court ought to have permitted the amendment. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Alapati Ramaswami v. Dasari Venkatanarayana1.

6. Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is impermissible in law to substitute the cause of action as a whole, and such a course would result in substantial alteration of the suit itself.

7. The narrow controversy in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the petitioners were entitled to substitute the paragraph relating to the cause of action in their plaint. It hardly needs any emphasis that cause of action constitutes the basis for filing of a suit, and it is the bundle of facts, which gives rise to the right to the plaintiff to file a suit. The rest of the pleadings revolve around the cause of action and in effect, elaborate and substantiate the cause of action. It is on this that the plea of limitation, entitlement of the parties, and the application of provisions of law would depend.

8. In the plaint, though it is not happily worded, the cause of action is to the effect that the dispossession of the plaintiff in the year 1980 gave rise to the cause of action and that is sought to be substituted with the following paragraph:

"The dismissal of the suit, O.S. No.585 of 1982 on 31-3-1989 gave rise to the cause of action for filing the suit. The cause of action therefore arose on and after the said date.

9. A wholesale replacement of the cause of action would, many a time, bring about a totally different and altogethe