The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment of the plaint should be allowed if it does not alter the nature and character of the suit and does not cause prejudice to the other party.

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J

1. The plaintiffs in C.S.No.110 of 2006 are the appellants herein and aggrieved by the dismissal of the application No.6627 of 2007 filed by them for the relief of amendment of plaint, had preferred this appeal.

2. Thefacts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-The appellants/plaintiffs filed the above suit against the Respondents herein, praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Respondents/defendants in dealing with the plaint schedule property any manner whatsoever or alienating the same including execution of deeds and registration of the same or sale of the same as estate of the first defendant company and for consequential reliefs.

3. In theplaint, it is averred among other things that the plaintiffs and the second defendant had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.08.2005 for the purchase of 116.38 acres of land located at Vallur IV Village, Minjur Taluk, Tiruvallur District for the sale consideration of Rs.7,51,50,890/-. The second defendant has subscribed his signature on the said MOU in his capacity as a shareholder as well as on behalf of the first defendant company and the shareholders of the first defendant had authorised the second defendant in this regard. It is further averred in the plaint that though the MOU describes about the proposed acquisition of above said shares of the above said company, it refers only to sale of schedule mentioned properties. The plaintiffs further stated that an advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/-was paid by way of four cheques and another sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was paid in cash and altogether the plaintiffs paid an advance amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- to the defendants. It was orally agreed between the parties that the transaction was to be completed on or before 11. 2005, termed as appointed day as per clause 1 of the MOU. However, the said time schedule could not be adhered to as the second defendant did not clear the cloud on title of 7.22 acres out of the total extent of land. It is further averred that even though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of obligations, the defendants had evaded. It is further averred in paragraph No.13 of the plaint that "the defendants failure to perform their part entitles the plaintiffs to seek for specific performance against it and the plaintiffs also consciously reserved its right to file a separate suit for specific performance against the defendants". It is also averred in the said paragraph that the defendants having received a sum of Rs.2 Crores from the plaintiffs, making attempts to sell the schedule mentioned property in favour of some third party illegally. Therefore, the plaintiffs came forward to file the suit for the said relief.

4. Originally interim order was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and subsequently it was vacated on the ground that the shares of the company had already been transferred in favour of the Directors of the company incorporated under the name and style of "Surya Developers and Promoters Private Limited.

5. Theplaintiffs took out an application in I.A.No.6627 of 2007 under Order VI Rule XVII of C.P.C., praying for amendment of the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is averred that the plaintiffs having parted with a huge sum towards the above said transaction in terms of the above said MOU, cannot be made to suffer at the hands of the Respondents/defendants for no fault on their part. Since the Respondents/defendants attempted to alienate or encumber the suit property, originally the suit was filed for permanent injunction. Since the plaintiffs had failed in their attempt to execute the sale deed in their favour, they sought to amend the plaint for the relief of specific performance instead of filing a separate suit. It is further averred that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents inasmuch as the proposed amendment would neither alter the character of the sui