The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the Orders dated 10. 2007 passed in I.A.Nos.252 of 2007 and 58 of 2007 respectively in O.S.No.60 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur.

2. The defendant in O.S.No.60 of 2002 is the revision petitioner before this court in both the Civil Revision petitions.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.60 of 2002 for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The revision petitioner as defendant filed a written statement and the suit is being contested. The trial has commenced and during the trial, I.A.No.252 of 2007 in I.A.No.58 of 2007 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the particulars mentioned in the plaint. I.A.No.58 of 2007 has also been filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 to amend the plaint. In support of I.A.No.58 of 2007, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff wherein it is stated that due to subsequent developments, he was forced to file the petition for an amendment. The amendment sought for in I.A.No.58 of 2007 is that, to add a para as Para 6(a) in the plaint, wherein it is stated that impugned sale deed and the alleged Koorchit are void abinitio and they are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant under the guise of a sale deed created a clog on the plaintiffs title to the suit property. Another amendment sought for is to delete para 8 in the plaint and to substitute a new para 8 showing changes in the cause of action. The consequent amendment is with regard to the jurisdiction value and also to add two new prayers i.e., one for declaration of the plaintiffs title and another for declaration of the Koorchit as void. The said I.A.No.58 of 2007 was resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant by filing a counter.

4. In I.A.No.252 of 2007, the case of the respondent/plaintiff is that, the schedule of property and the particulars given are wrong and therefore, the amendment petition has been filed to correct those particulars. This was also resisted by the revision petitioner/ defendant by filing a counter. The trial court by a common order dt.10. 2007 allowed both the applications on condition that the respondent/plaintiff pays a cost of Rs.2,000/-in I.A.No.58 of 2007 and a cost of Rs.1500/-in I.A.No.252 of 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the above Civil Revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents and judgments filed in support of their submissions.

6. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs side evidence was closed and the evidence on the side of the defendant is about to commence. At that stage I.A.No.246 of 2006 was filed by the revision petitioner to admit the Koorchits and it was allowed on 110. 2006. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff changed his counsel and I.A.No.58 of 2007 was filed. In I.A.No.58 of 2007, the respondent/ plaintiff wanted to convert the suit from bare injunction to declaration of title. Therefore, instead of driving him to file yet another suit for determination of title, the trial court has correctly allowed I.A.No.58 of 2007 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Similarly, I.A.No.252 of 2007 has been filed to rectify the mistakes that crept in I.A.No.58 of 2007 and by allowing both the applications, no real prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner/ defendant. For the delay and inconvenience caused, the trial court has rightly imposed a cost of Rs.2,000/-in I.A.No.58 of 2007 and Rs.1500/-in I.A.No.252 of 2007. Thus, in my view the trial court has rightly decided the matter leaving no room for interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. In 2006(