A new cause of action cannot be introduced by way of amendment of the plaint.

The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision petition against the dismissal of his I. A. No. 91 of 1993 for amending his plaint in O.S. No. 197 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. The said suit is for a declaration that the suit document dated 17-2-1989 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant and one Diravia Thevar is only a mortgage deed and not a sale deed as it purports to be and for consequential injunction. The suit was filed on 16-9-1990 and while P.W. 1 was being examined at the trial of the suit, the above said I.A. No. 91 of 1993 was filed in Feb. 1993. As per the original plaint, though the above said document purported to be a sale deed it is only a mortgage deed but now by the proposed amendment the plaintiff wants to plead that the said document is a void document and hence he wants to have an alternative prayer for a declaration that the said deed is void. For seeking this alternative prayer, the relevant allegations in the proposed amendment as follows:-

"The suit document was registered in Amaravilai Sub Registrar's Office which is situated in the State of Kerala. The first defendant had arranged for the preparation and registration of the said suit document. He made arrangements to register the suit document in Amaravilai Sub Registrar's Office because stamp duty to be paid in Kerala State is much cheaper than in the State of Tamil Nadu. For the purpose of registering the suit document in Kerala State, the 1st defendant had purchased a small in significant extent of property situate at the area of Amaravilai Sub Registrar's Office in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no connection whatsoever regarding the, above mentioned transaction. The plaintiff had not paid any amount to the said transaction. He had no intention to purchase the property involved in the said deed. It is a bogus deed. The above mentioned transaction is a"

sham and nominal transaction. The above said deed was registered first and the suit document was registered next. The registration number of the said deed is 423 of 1989 and the registration number of the suit document is 424 of 1989. As such the, registration of suit document at Amaravilai Sub Registrar's Office is not valid."

The material allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application, seeking for amendment are as follows:-

"This plea that the suit document is void has not been specifically taken in the plaint. By inadvertance I have not asked for a relief to get a declaration that the suit document dated 17-2-1989 is void in the suit."

In the above said circumstances, the court below has dismissed the Interlocutory Application on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the character of the suit.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:-

Only an alternative prayer is sought for by the proposed amendment, namely, to declare, alternatively, that the above said document No. 424 dated 17-2-1989 is void. There is no change of any cause of action or pleadings of new set of facts. The learned counsel also relied on the decision reported in A. K. Gupta and Sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation, 45 ILR(Pat) 1298. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits as follows:-

The proposed amendment not only seeks an alternative new prayer as aforesaid, -but it also based the said new claim on new set of facts, which are set out in the proposed paragraph 15 of the plaint to be amended. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the dismissal of the said Interlocutory Application is quite correct. He also relied on the relevant observation in the above said decision of the Supreme Court to negative the claim of the petitioner's counsel.

3. I have considered the rival submissions. This is not a case where only an alternative prayer is sought for. But for seeking the above said alternative prayer, a new set of facts is sought to be pleaded. In other words; a new