The amendment should not change the nature of the suit, should be timely, and should serve ultimate justice while avoiding further litigation.

1. The above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ambasamudhram, dated 28.10.2004, made in I.A.No.570/2004 in O.S. No. 146/2002, in any by which the learned District Munsif dismissed the Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 7, C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff who filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent herein defendant demolished the northern wall and put up anew window on that wall and further he put up a window on the western wall also. It is the claim of the petitioner that the act of the respondent in putting new windows on the walls is inconvenient to her while bathing and using the backside of the house which necessitated her to file the Petition in I.A. No. 570/2004 for amendment in the plaint seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the windows put on the northern and western side walls. The said Application was resisted by the respondent stating that the Application is belated and if the amendment as sought for by the petitioner is ordered, there is likelihood in change of cause of action. Learned District Munsif, accepting the above objections, dismissed Application, hence the present Revision.

3. Heard the learned-counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

4. It is useful to refer certain relevant averments in the plaint. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it is stated:

TAMIL

At the end of paragraph 5 it is stated:

TAMIL

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to the above averments, particularly the reservation made in paragraph 5, submitted that on the date when the petitioner filed the Application for amendment the same was well within the prescribed time and therefore there may not be any serious objection in considering her petition for amendment. He also contended that by allowing such amendment no prejudice will be caused to the other side. In support of the above contention, he relied on the decision of this Court K. Shanmugham & two others v. S. Lakshmi Ammal, 1995 (2) CTC 461. In that case, the plaintiff/respondent before the High Court has filed an Application seeking for an amendment for the relief of mandatory injunction on the ground that after the receipt of the order of interim injunction, the petitioners had constructed a septic tank in the suit property which completely obstructed the suit common passage. It is also stated that the petitioners have put up a balcony projecting the suit passage and as these constructions have been put up pending the suit, the petitioners have filed the Application for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the unauthorized construction erected over the suit property in the ground level and above the ground level and also the balcony. The lower Court has considered the amendment sought for and allowed the same on the ground that the relief sought for is based on subsequent event that took place during the pendency of the suit. A serious objection was taken contending that if the plaintiff is aggrieved due to the subsequent events, it is always open to the plaintiff to file a separate suit and she cannot be permitted to seek any relief in respect of the subsequent events by way of amendment. While rejecting the said contention, the learned Judge has held:

“...........so long as the cause of action for the original suit is not changed and when the other relief is based on the subsequent events that took place during the pendency of the suit and the nature of the suit also is not changed, the amendment cannot be refused .............”

After finding so, the learned Judge confirmed the o