Opposite side is entitled to file additional pleadings.

Plaintiff in O.S. No.559 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Tenkasi, aggrieved against the order passed in I.A. No.496 of 1995 has filed the present revision before this Court.

2. The petitioner herein has originally filed O.S. No.559 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Tenkasi, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property against the defendants. The respondents/ defendants filed a written statement disputing the various averments.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.496 of 1995, the petitioner herein contended that pending suit he has also filed I.A. No. 1465 of 1990 under O.39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., and also obtained interim in- junction in the said application. According to her, when the injunction was in force, the defendants have constructed stair-case and toilet in the first schedule of the property and also provided door and window on the plaintiff’s site. This has been strengthened by the report of the Commissioner, who is categorical terms confirmed that the defendants have put up new construction in the subject-matter of the property. In those circumstance, the plaintiff sought for an amendment to incorporate the relief of mandatory injunction. With regard to the new structures created or constructed after the institution of the suit. The respondent/ defendants filed a counter affidavit contending that the present relief of mandatory injunction is barred by limitation and it is not open to the plaintiff to take such step at the belated stage.

4. The court below on consideration of the affidavit and counter-affidavit filed by both parties, after holding that the alleged construction was found place in the Commissioner’s report filed even as early as on 27. 1991 the plaintiff having failed to take many step for about 4 1/2 years, dismissed the said application as barred by limitation. The said order is now questioned in the revision by the plaintiff.

5. Mr.T.M. Hariharam learned counsel for the petitioner, after referring to O.6, Rule 17, C.P.C., contended that since the present amendment sought for is not going to change the cause of action and that the order of the court below dismissing his application is incorrect. He also brought to my notice that the construction of toilet and steps as well as fixing of window and door way in the subject-matter of the properly is after the institution of the suit, hence the plaintiff has no other go except to amend the plaint in the interest of justice and in order for complete adjudication of the cause involved. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions of this Court reported in (1) Natesan v. Govindasami, (1988)2 L.W. 397; (2) A.K.Gupta v. Damodar Valley Corporation, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 96: (1967)2 S.C.J. 123 and (3) A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 96.

6. On the other hand, Mr.Peppin Fernando, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, defendants submitted that if the proposed amendment is clearly barred by limitation, the court has no power to permit the plaintiff to amend her plaint. In support of the above proposition, he has very much relied on the following decisions reported in:

(i) K.Nagutha Mohamed Nainar v. Vedavalli Ammal, (1959)1 M.L.J. 307; (ii) Chinnaswami Naicker v. Kandasami Gounder, (1969)1 M.L.J. 393: A.I.R. 1970 Mad. 81;

(iii) The Correspondent, A.A.M. School v. Jeevanandam, (1989)2 M.L.J. 207 (D.B.) and

(iv) Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh, (1996)1 Civil Law Times. 434.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

8.. Before going into the controversy, it is better to see the necessary provisions for amendment, which is incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure, namely, O.6, Rule 17 which is extracted hereunder:

"O.6, Rule 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 determ