1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 24.01.2011 made in I.A.No.297 of 2010 in O.S.No.162 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode.

2. The petitioners 1 to 7 are the defendants 3 to 9 and 8th petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased first petitioner, first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 2 and 11 in O.S.No.162 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode. The first respondent initially filed a suit, O.S.No.938 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, which was subsequently transferred to the Subordinate Court, Thiruchengode and renumbered as O.S.No.168 of 2008. The said suit was filed for return of advance amounts against the petitioners 1 to 7 and three others. The second respondent and 6th petitioner filed written statement on 15.09.2004 and 24.08.2009 respectively and are contesting the suit. The first respondent filed I.A.No.297 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C for amendment to include the relief of specific performance and to rectify the defects in the description of the property mentioned in the sale agreement dated 04.04.2001. According to the first respondent, on the advice of his previous counsel, Mr.S.Ganesan, he has filed the suit only for refund of advance amount. Due to lack of legal knowledge and inadvertence, he followed the advice of earlier Advocate Mr.S.Ganesan. After engaging the present counsel, he came to know that he can ask for relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. The suit was filed on 19.11.2003 and the relief now claimed by way of amendment is not barred by limitation.

3. The second petitioner filed counter and the same was adopted by the other petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. In the counter affidavit, the petitioners submitted that the suit, O.S.No.938 of 2003 was originally filed on 19.11.2003. The said suit is pending for last 7 years. The relief now sought for is barred by limitation. If amendment is allowed, it will change the character of the suit and will introduce a new cause of action and new case. The first respondent ought to have claimed relief of specific performance in the original suit itself and cannot claim the relief of specific performance by way of amendment and prayed for dismissal of the I.A.No.297 of 2010.

4. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit, allowed the application on the ground that the first respondent originally claimed for return of advance amount, as such his claim for relief of specific performance is not barred by limitation and held that he is allowing the application to give an opportunity to the first respondent to put forth his claim and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

5. Against the said order dated 24.01.2011 made in I.A.No.297 of 2010 in O.S.No.162 of 2008, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the first respondent filed suit for refund of advance amount and did not seek for specific performance of agreement of sale. The first respondent has stated that the description of the property is vague in agreement of sale and another suit is pending and in view of the above facts, he is not seeking relief of specific performance of agreement. The first respondent has abandoned and relinquished the relief of specific performance. After 7 years of filing the suit, the first respondent is not entitled to seek the relief of specific performance and the relief sought for is barred by limitation. The amendment now sought for changes the character of the suit. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of his contentions, relied on the following judgments:

(i) 2011 (1) MWN (Civil) 232 in the case of Van Vibhag K.G.N.Sahkari Sansthan, Maryadit Vs. Ramesh Chander & Others:

“27. In this context, the provision of Article 54 of the Limi