JUDGMENT :

C. Saravanan, J.

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Fair and Decretal Order, dated 20.2.2015 passed by the District Munsif Court, Mettur in I.A. No. 1268 of 2014 in O.S. No. 314 of 2007.

2. By the impugned Order, the Court has dismissed I.A. No. 1268 of 2014 in O.S. No. 314 of 2007 filed by the Petitioner to amend the Plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. The Petitioner was impleaded as the Legal Representative of the deceased Plaintiff in the above Suit, pursuant to a "Will" dated 27.2.2014 that was purportedly executed by the deceased Plaintiff bequeathing a smaller extent of the Suit Schedule property in favour of the Petitioner. After executing the aforesaid Will, the Plaintiff, viz. Ponnusamy died on 9.6.2014.

4. The Petitioner had filed I.A. No. 1268 of 2014 in O.S. No. 314 of 2007 before the District Munsif Court, Mettur to amend the Plaint. The said Application was dismissed. Challenging the Dismissal Order, the Petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. The Application was filed to restrict the remedy to a smaller extent of the Suit Schedule property and for a declaration that the Petitioner is the Owner of the aforesaid lesser extent of the Suit Schedule property.

6. The Respondents who are the Defendants in the Suit contested the Application and stated that the Petitioner's father who was the 1st Defendant and Petitioner's uncle deceased (Plaintiff-Ponnusamy) had colluded and filed the above Suit for a Permanent Injunction even though the 2nd Respondent was the original Allottee/Assignee of the land and the 1st Respondent was in possession of the said land.

7. Further it was stated that the Application for Amendment of the Plaint seeking for a declaration that the Petitioner was the Owner of the Lesser extent land out of the Suit Schedule property was intended to alter the course of the case and was barred by limitation in terms of Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

8. It is stated that the necessity for filing the Application to amend the Plaint arose on account of subsequent event after the death of the original Plaintiff, Ponnusamy, who died and on account of the "Will", dated 27.2.2014 executed by the deceased Plaintiff-Ponnusamy in favour of the Petitioner. Objection was raised by the Respondents in the said Application for impleading the Petitioner as the Legal Representative of the deceased Plaintiff, Ponnusamy.

9. It was submitted that the proposed amendment was an innocuous amendment and no prejudice would have been caused to the Respondents (contesting Defendants). By seeking a declaratory relief, the Petitioner was avoiding Multiplicity of the proceedings.

10. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner was constrained to file I.A. Nos. 1267 & 1268 of 2014 after the trial was completed and after the Petitioner was impleaded and allowed to pursue with the Suit in place of the deceased Plaintiff-Ponnusamy. While, the Court allowed I.A. No. 1267 of 2014, it has rejected I.A. No. 1268 of 2014 vide the impugned Order.

11. It was submitted that the rejection of the Application by the Lower Court for amending the Plaint on the ground that the Petitioner was asking for a new relief in respect of an altogether new property and therefore, Amendment cannot be permitted is incorrect. The observation that it is open for the Petitioner to file a new Suit is an erroneous assumption on facts as the proposed Amendment merely restricted the relief for a Lesser extent of the property from and out of the Suit Schedule property that was included in the Plaint filed by the deceased Plaintiff; Ponnusamy during his life time.

12. The necessity for a declaratory relief arises on account of the objection to the rights of the Petitioner over the property when he filed the Application to be impleaded as the Legal Representative of the deceased Plaintiff-Ponnusamy.

13. It was submitte