ORDER K. Sankaran, C.J. 1. This is a revision petition filed by the plaintiff, against the order of the learned Mimsiff refusing one of three amendments sought for by him to be made to the plaint. From a reading of the plaint, it is clear that the essential dispute between the parties is about the correct location of the boundary separating their properties. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has wrongfully cut and removed certain trees which stood on the boundary line which according to the plaintiff stood on his property. 2. There is also the complaint that the extention attempted to be made by the defendant to his own building is an encroachment on the plaint property. On the basis of these allegations, plaintiff has brought the suit for recovery of damages on account of the cutting of the trees by the defendant and also to restrain him by an injunction from cutting more trees from the boundary line and also from proceeding with the extension of his building so as to encroach into the plaintiff's property. 3. From the report submitted by the Commissioner deputed in this case, it was seen that the eaves of the defendant's building was extending into plaintiff's property. Thereupon plaintiff wanted to have this plaint amended by adding a prayer that the defendant should be directed to remove the eaves extending in to the plaintiff's property. Learned Munsiff disallowed the prayer for such an amendment. 4. The reasons stated by the lower court in refusing the amendment mentioned above is that the fact which forms the basis of the amendment was in existence even at the time of the filing of the plaint and hence the amendment cannot be allowed. 5. The Lower Court has taken the view that amendments can be allowed only on the basis of new facts which come in to existence after the date of the suit. There is no warrant for thus restricting the powers of amendment. No doubt the amendment which alters the nature of the suit will not be allowed. That is not the position here. It cannot also be said that the proposed amendment would take away a valuable right of the defendant. The only argument is that plaintiff should be directed to a fresh suit. So far as possible the Court should not encourage multiplicity of suits. 6. That is not the position here. It cannot also be said that the proposed amendment would take away a valuable right of the defendant. The only argument is that plaintiff should be directed to a fresh suit. So far as possible the Court should not encourage multiplicity of suits. 6. The amendment asked for by the plaintiff is really necessary for effectively and finally settling the dispute between himself and defendant on the question of that portion of the boundary separating their property. Interests of Justice require that the amendment should be allowed. It does not alter the nature of the suit. It only adds a new prayer which is consistent with the basic allegations in the suit. 7. It was because the plaintiff did not think that the eaves of the defendant's building was encroaching on his property that he could not ask for the consequential relief in the suit. Failure to do so cannot be a bar to granting the amendment. 8. in the result, the revision petition is allowed with costs and the plaintiff is allowed to have the plaint amended as prayed for.