The main legal point established in the judgment is that while there should be a liberal approach in considering applications for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., amendments seeking to introduce a new cause of action or new set of facts cannot be permitted.

The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai dated 26.2.2004 made in I.A.No.295 of 2001 in O.S.No.163 of 1997.

2. The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.163 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Kuzhithurai praying for a decree declaring her title and possession over the suit property and consequently restraining the respondents herein from trespassing into the suit property and put up any construction thereon. The specific case in the plaint was that the suit property measuring 2 cents

875 sq. links comprising in Re-survey No.B3/238 of Vilavancode village and the building thereon in Door No.16-15A of Kuzhithurai Municipality originally belonged to one Rajendran Nair and others. The said Rajendran Nair, who got this property under a partition deed, sold the same to the petitioner by sale deed dated 28.6.1995 and registered as document No.1086. The case of the petitioner is that from the date of the said purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the respondents, according to the petitioner, have tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property, she has filed the above-referred suit for the prayer set out therein. The respondents filed the written statement as early as 25.6.1998 pointing out that the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Rajendra Nair was having title only for 2.875 cents and the petitioner has purchased the said extent only. But, the description of boundaries on the eastern side has been wrongly stated with an illegal object of knocking away the respondents property. Thus, according to the case of the respondents as put forth in their written statement, the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to only 2.875 cents and the boundaries have been wrongly shown by including 1.875 cents, which the respondents have purchased.

3. While so, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.295 of 2001 in the month of April 2001 seeking for amendment of the plaint. The only reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of such application for amendment is that "at the time of drafting the plaint, certain slips are caused and the plaint has to be amended suitably." This is the only reason that has been stated by the petitioner in her affidavit, while such a plea was not taken out earlier. In paragraph (4) of the affidavit in support of the application for amendment, the petitioner has stated that under the partition deed, Rajendran Nair has obtained a particular extent and later after the death of his mother R.Saraswathy Amma, her property also devolved upon the said Rajendra Nair. Thus, the said Rajendra Nair got A and B schedule properties under the partition deed No.3647 of 1972. Further, under sale deed No.1153 of 1977, the said Rajendran Nair, the vendor of the petitioner, purchased half a cent.

4. A counter has been filed by the respondents herein stating that when the suit was in the list on the earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed an application for impleading and managed to remove the suit from the list. Again when the matter was posted in the list after examination of P.W.1, the present application for amendment has been filed only to drag on the proceedings. The further case of the respondents in their counter is that the proposed amendment sought for will change the entire nature and character of the suit and hence the amendment cannot be allowed.

5. The learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai by his order-dated 26.2.2004 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. While doing so, the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai has held that by seeking excess area than the plaint schedule property, the petitioner wants to change the entire character of the suit.

6. I have heard Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned counsel for the first respondent and Ms.J.Anandavalli, learne