Amendments to pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings if they do not change the cause of action or introduce new facts. However, amendments that alter the cause of action or introduce new cause of action cannot be entertained, especially at the appellate stage.

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 change the cause of action of the suit property nor give new cause of action. The first Appellate Court being the last Court of fact, the rejection of amendment petition will affect the right of the party.

4. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the judgement of this Court rendered in S.Kanthimathiammal and others vs. Nagammal and others reported in 2015-4-L.W.233 wherein this court has viewed that,

It is a well settled law that proviso cannot whittle down the main provision of the statute. The proviso shall always be interpreted narrowly and the very purpose of the main proviso. Therefore, the application of proviso will be interpreted narrowly. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer the main provision, Order 6 Rule 17 which provides for amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, if it requires any amendment of proceedings, the same can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. Furthermore, Section 153 of the Civil Procedure Code also provides for amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.

and on the facts in the above case, the Court has held that amendment will not change the basis of the suit and permitted the plaintiff to amend at the appellate stage.

5. Similarly, in Thamaraiselvi vs. latha and others reported in (2013) 2 MLJ 328, this Court has allowed the plaintiff to carry out the amendment to include certain properties, which were omitted to be included in the original plaint. Since the Court felt that in the plea, the property which has been omitted has already been included but without relief or prayer in respect of that property in the suit schedule.

6. Considering the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is clear that if there is a genuine delay to carry out amendment to the pleading which will not change the cause of action or introduce new facts, the Court can entertain such applications for amendment at any stage even, during the appellate stage. Contrarily, if the amendment will alter the cause of action or will introduce new cause of action, then such request cannot be entertained.

7. In the case in hand, the schedule of property as found in the plaint, and the decree and in the memorandum of appeal compared by this Court with the schedule of property sought to be amended. At the outset this Court was able to find out that in the original plaint, the properties are described with Survey Number and measurements whereas, by way of amendment the plaintiff wants to delete the Survey Number. This by itself makes the description of the property more ambiguous and difficult to identify. Further, the first item of original schedule has been described as three different items.

8. Th