Due to the amendment basic structure of the suit is not altered.

The above civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decretalorder dated 18.3.2002 made in I.A.No.108 of 2002 in O.S.No.80 of 2002 by the Court of II Additional District Munsif, Dindugal.

2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.80 of 2002 before the Court below as against the revision petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 herein for declaration that the 'A' schedule cart track is the maamool track for reaching the properties disclosed in 'B' to 'H' schedules and pending the suit, the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 have filed an application in I.A.No.59 of 2002 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint schedule on ground that the defect in the plan and the schedule were noted only at the time of inspection of property by the Advocate-Commissioner and Surveyor; that S.No.617 is a natham and therefore S.No.617 should be included and S.Nos.616/6-B and 616/10-B should be deleted from the schedule of property.

3. This application is opposed by the second petitioner/revision petitioner on ground that the same is not maintainable and would pray to dismiss the said application.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court would conduct an enquiry wherein no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side and would ultimately allow the application on ground that the cause of action was not changed and no prejudice wass caused to the defendants. Aggrieved, the second defendant therein has come forward to file the above civil revision petition on grounds such as (i) that the Court below had allowed the amendment application for injunction when the subject matter of the suit remains unamended; (ii) that the Court below ought to have seen that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC pertains to an application for amendment in a suit and not to interim applications and (iii) that the Court below should have appreciated that there cannot be two different properties for adjudication, one in the suit and another one in the application.

5. During the arguments, learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents would reiterate what has been pleaded before the lower Court in the application and the counter and in the grounds of the above revision petition, which are extracted supra, with no new fact or circumstance or law having been brought forth and therefore tracing the same will only be a repetition of those facts which have already been extracted and hence the Court is left with no choice but to pass orders based on those materials made available in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law pertaining to the subject.

6. Prior to entering into the discussion since it is an application filed by the respondents No.1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, before the lower Court under Order VI, Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint, it is necessary to extract the said provision of law:

“17. Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial”.

7. So far as the import of the Order VI, Rule 17 is concerned, the Court could, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such manner and on such terms for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, it is added in the proviso to the above rule that if the Court is s