1. Plaintiff in O.S.1 17 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif, Namakkal filed an application in I.A.No.413 of 2001 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Munsif dismissed the said application by an order dated 14.9.2001. The aggrieved plaintiff has preferred the above revision petition against the said order.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.117 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Namakkal contending that she took the suit property on lease from the first defendant for the period from 1.1.1979 to 31.12.1998 and as per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was permitted to put up super structure. The claim of the plaintiff is that she put up certain building and shops in the suit property and got electricity connection also and that apart, the Municipal assessment too stands in the name of the plaintiff’s husband by name Palaniyandi. The plaintiff produced property tax receipts and also water tax receipts. The further claim of the plaintiff is that even after the lease period, she would be entitled to be in possession of the property by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. As there was interference by the first defendant, she filed the suit in O.S.637 of 1998 and also obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.999 of 1998. When the second defendant c ame out with a plea that he has purchased the property and also threatened to interfere the possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff, she filed a second suit against the second defendant in O.S.527 of 1999. Thereafter in June 2000, third defendant issued notice to the plaintiff claiming to be the absolute owner by virtue of decree obtained for specific performance in O.S.568 of 1999 again on the file of the same Court. The 4th defendant viz., the Municipality, ignoring the telegram sent by the plaintif f wherein the plaintiff informed about the pendency of the suit against the second defendant viz., O.S.527 of 1999, effected mutation of municipal assessment in the name of the second defendant without any enquiry and without hearing plaintiff. In the suit, plaintiff sought for declaration that the proceedings of the 4th defendant/Municipality in changing the house tax assessment from the plaintiff’s husband's name to the second defendant is invalid, arbitrary and also prayed for mandatory injunction to restore the tax assessment in the name of plaintiff's husband.

3. The first defendant in the suit filed written statement contending that the lease period was over even way back in the year 1998 and that the plaintiff had put up only some temporary structure and in fact the second defendant is the owner of the suit property. Even according to the first defendant, he was only in possession of the property and not the owner. There is yet another plea that the plaintiff has been colluding with the third defendant and in fact the decree in O.S.568 of 1999 was obtained collusively.

4. Pending suit plaintiff filed I.A.No.413 of 2001 contending that in view of the subsequent development, plaint has to be suitably amended. In the affidavit in support of the petition it has been stated that when the suit was pending, 4th defendant at the instigation of defendants 1 to 3 has disconnected the water supply and hence the prayer for mandatory injunction to restore the water supply has also to be included in the plaint.

5. The second respondent/second defendant resisted the said application contending that the amendment sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff varies, changes and alters the cause of action and subject matter of the suit. According to the second defendant/second respondent, even before filing of the suit i.e,., on 21.12.2000, the water service connection was changed in the name of second defendant/second respondent and the disconnection was only thereafter that was on 20.3.2001. It is also the contention of the second respondent that so long as the change o