For delay application of for amendment cannot be rejected.

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 11. 2004, passed in I.A.No.2128/2003 in O.S.No.249/1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram.

2.The plaintiffs in O.S.No.249/1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram are the revision petitioners. They are aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 11. 2004 by which the amendment application filed by them in I.A.No.2128/2003 is dismissed.

3.The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.249/1990 for a declaration to declare that the suit properties belong to them and for a mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up by defendants 1 to 6 on the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs case is that they have been in continuous possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of the acquisition proceedings of the revenue authorities dated 4. 1916. 7th defendant who is the Commissioner of the Dharapuram municipality filed a written statement in March 1992 stating that the suit property belonged to municipality and it was acquired for their purpose. 9th defendant who is the Tahsildar in his written statement filed on 212. 1998 stated that the patta of the suit properties stood in the name of the municipality but the same was converted into Natham Poramboke by G.O.No.761/Revenue Department dated 18. 96 and therefore it belonged to Government.

4.While so, in December 2003, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.2128/2003 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to add the following in the body of the plaint at the end of para 7 of the plaint:

"The plaintiffs possession of the suit property admittedly, originates on 4. 1916. If for any reason this Honble court comes to the conclusion that the acquisition proceedings for 6 acres including the suit property in the year 1916 did not include the interest of the Methodist Mission, into whose shoes, the Church of South India had stepped in, the Methodist Mission and subsequently, the Church of South India have perfected title by adverse possession of the suit property right from the date 4. 1916 till date. The plaintiffs further submit that the continuation and exclusive possession and enjoyment in the hands of the Methodist Mission land subsequently the CSI which could be characterised only as a possession by the church which was constructed in the year 1916 itself, would lead to the characterisation of the suit property, only as a temple site into which do main the Government has no locus standi in view of Section 2(1)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905".

5.Th plaintiffs also wanted an alternative prayer in the prayer column after the existing prayer which reads as under:

"and alternatively declare that the Methodist Mission land subsequently the Church of South India had perfected title in the suit property by adverse possession right from 4. 1916 till date."

6.This Application was opposed by 1st defendant by filing a counter on the ground that when the suit was pending for 13 years, the Application has been filed only to further protract the litigation and the alternative prayer would lead to a new cause of action and alter the character of the suit.

7.The trial court by order dated 11. 2003 dismissed the Application on the ground that it is belated and it would alter the character of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6. I have also perused the documents and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

9.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the trial court failed to take note of the settled legal principles that amendment could be ordered at any time on terms and the alternative prayer sought for in the amendment in addition to the existing prayer would not alter the nature and character of the suit.

10.The learned counsel relied on the following decisions in