The court may allow amendment of pleadings if it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, and the amendment does not alter the nature and character of the suit or introduce a new cause of action.

The petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.338 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner putting up construction in the specified area and for a mandatory direction to the defendant to demolish the already constructed wall and pillars in the suit property. After the commencement of trial i.e., while the suit was at part heard stage, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and under Section 151 of C.P.C to amend the plaint to introduce certain particulars in the Schedule as regards Survey Numbers.

2. (i) In the affidavit filed by these respondents it is alleged that while the first respondent was in the box, he was cross examined by the defendants Counsel to the effect that the Survey Numbers of the house property purchased by him and his wife were not furnished in the plaint. If the Survey Numbers are given in the Schedule, it would be easy for determination. Hence, the amendment application may be allowed.

2.(ii) Particulars of Amendment:

In the suit schedule of property add the following after the words "Gandhi Street (Old Mettu Street) Town Survey Number 772/2, 772/1 and 772/1A, 772/1E, and also in the plaint sketch attached in the Eastern side T.S.No.772/2, on the West of that T.S.No.772/1, now subdivided as 772/1B and on the Western side of the Sketch T.S.No.772/1A, respectively, and in all I.As. wherever it is necessary.

3. In the Counter filed by this petitioner it is alleged that in the written statement the defendant has clearly mentioned in para 18, that the plaint schedule is not accordance with Order 7, Rule 3 of C.P.C. and that the petitioner have not chosen to amend the plaint at that time and after P.w.1 was fully cross examined, this petition has been filed. He himself had admitted during the course of cross examination that plaint schedule does not contain any Survey Number and boundaries. If the amendment petition is allowed, the admission aspects in the cross examination could be nullified and irreparable loss would be caused to the defendant. As per Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., the petitioner should show that he could not bring the amendment before the commencement of trial. The proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. A new cause of action would arise. The petition is a belated one. Only to drag on the proceedings the petition is filed and the same is barred by limitation, as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Hence the petition has to be dismissed.

4. The learned District Munsif, allowed the application by observing that except the plea of "delay" there is no serious objection found in the Counter; the counter is not sustainable as the allegation in the counter is not acceptable as regards limitation, cause of action and nature of suit and that allowing application will not do any harm to the respondent/defendant.

5. In the plaint, the Schedule property has been described as, in Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu Taluk, Firka, Town Gandhi Street (Old Mettu Street) Door No.131, the Southern wall of the Plaintiff as shown in the Sketch (forming part of the plaint) as ABCDEF. The suit property is not furnished with reference to Survey Numbers. Now the Survey Numbers in which the suit property is situated are sought to be introduced in the plaint schedule.

6. It is the contention of Mr.R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment application has been filed after a long time that too in the part heard stage, after about a decade and the allowing of which would certainly prejudice the rights of the petitioners and hence it is not sustainable.

7. Conversely, Mr.M.S. Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the proposed amendment would not alter the nature and character of the suit that no new cause of action is introduced, that no fresh relief has been prayed for and only to clarify the