1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 444 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai. Pending trial of the suit, she filed an application under Order 6 , Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the plaint by inclusion of a property which was omitted to be included originally. In the affidavit, she has stated that the omission was not due to the indifference on the part of the petitioner. The four boundaries mentioned in the plaint would also include the omitted extent of 1/2 ares in Survey No. 939/11. Hence, the amendment may be allowed. The petition was resisted by the defendants by filing counter stating that the petitioner has already filed O.S. No. 20 of 2009 with regard to the entire extent in S. No. 939/11 and hence, the present application may be dismissed.

2. After hearing both parties, the learned District Munsif, Pudukkottai has dismissed the application by observing that in case of amending the plaint, the nature and character of the suit would be altered and that in view of the pendency of O.S. No. 20 of 2009 with respect to Survey No. 939/11, the amendment would not be allowed. Challenging the order, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. It is true