These three Revision Petitions are directed against the dismissal of the I.A.Nos.83,84 and 85 of 2013, filed in A.S.No.108 of 2008 dated 28.04.2015, on the file of the learned Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul, by the plaintiff/appellant to amend the suit schedule property.

2. The suit filed for declaration and for delivery of vacant possession came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has preferred the First Appeal. Pending appeal, these three applications have been filed seeking amendment of the suit schedule property as found in the plaint, decree and grounds of the appeal respectively. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the applications holding that the amendment applications have been filed after Five Years following the first appeal, which indicates the intention of the appellant as to protract the proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the true intent of the revision petitioner in seeking amendment to the schedule of the property. The learned Sub Judge failed to note that the amendment sought to be made by the petitioner will neither ch