This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 110. 2004 made in I.A.No. 1158 of 2003 in O.S.No: 365 of 2000 by the learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.

2. The suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for the relief of declaration of the plaintiffs easmentary right over the B Schedule property and for grant of permanent injunction against the first defendant. But now the case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that he purchased the suit A schedule property on 2. 1994, but by mistake it was described as 2. 1974 and as such the question of acquiring easmentary right by prescription does not arise and that B Schedule property was left and earmarked as a road and it was so described in the boundaries in the sale deed as well as in the lay out plan and hence it is just and necessary to seek for declaration that the B Schedule property is inalienable road instead of easmentary right. Hence the amendments are necessary.

3. The revision petitioners/defendants resisted the amendments contending that the suit is based on the sa