JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Refusal to permit amendment of the plaint is the subject-matter of this civil revision. 2. The property is disputed was admittedly joint family property. Coming to know that in a suit for partition, a decree has been passed on compromise, plaintiff filed the present suit for partition alleging therein that he had no knowledge of the same. 3. During the pendency of the suit, notification u/s 3 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, was issued and the disputed land having come within the consolidation area, the suit for partition was to abate. At that stage, plaintiff filed the petition for amendment of the plaint for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on him. Defendants raised objection on the grounds that the nature of the suit would change from a suit for partition to one for avoiding a compromise decree and such a relief would be barfed by limitation on the date of filing the petition for amendment. 4. Trial Court rejected the prayer on the finding that the nature and character of the suit would change. Mr. B.H. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the trial Court is outcome of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. Mr. N. C. Pati, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, submitted that the refusal of the prayer for amendment of the plaint is justified on account of change of nature of the suit, the delay on acccount of which the relief is barred by limitation and also on account of the conduct of the plaintiff in attempting to avoid the effect of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. 5 There is no dispute that the factual assertions in the plaint are not being changed. Only paragraph 15 explaining the cause of action and the relief of partition are proposed to be amended. The suit is now pending disposal. In such premises it is to be examined if the proposed amendment can be refused. 6. Mr. B. H. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in cases where all the allegations had been made in the plaint, the parties being fully cognisant: of the facts and the points in controversy the amendment ought not to be refused. In such premises it is to be examined if the proposed amendment can be refused. 6. Mr. B. H. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in cases where all the allegations had been made in the plaint, the parties being fully cognisant: of the facts and the points in controversy the amendment ought not to be refused. He relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1964 S. C. 5 : (Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Jaffar Mohamed Hussain and another), Nanduri Yogananda Lakshminarasimhachari and Others Vs. Sri Agastheswaraswamivaru A.K. Gupta and Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, Nanda Moharana Vs. Lakshman Moharana and Others, Dibakar Mohanty Vs. The Collector and Others ILR 1976 Cutt. 344 (Maheswar Malik v. Sakuntala Malikani, after her Ananta Malik and others) and Jemma Vs. Raghu. In AIR 1964 S.C. 5 (supra), the relief was not claimed in proper form though the facts on which relief in proper form could be given were all set out in plaint. The amendment was treated to be of a formal character and was allowed. In Nanduri Yogananda Lakshminarasimhachari and Others Vs. Sri Agastheswaraswamivaru, all the allegations having been there in the plaint and an issue having been framed on the question, the parties were fully cognisant of the points. The additional of a new prayer by amendment was allowed. In A.K. Gupta and Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation it was held that in cases where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts merely to a different or additional approach to the same facts the amendment is to be allowed, even after the statutory period of limitation. Explaining the meaning of the expression 'cause of action' it was observed that the same does not mean every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, but it means a new claim made on new basis constituted by new facts. In AIR 1973 Orissa 42 (supra), it was held that in a case where the plaintiff on the facts pleaded could have asked for the relief which he wanted to ask by way of amendment, the amendment cannot be said to be of such a nature as to alter the nature of the suit. In AIR 1973 Orissa 42 (supra), it was held that in a case where the plaintiff on the facts pleaded could have asked for the relief which he wanted to ask by way of amendment, the amendment cannot be said to be of such a nature as to alter the nature of the suit. In AIR 1974 Orissa 51 (snpra), amendment of the plaint was sought in a case where title was claimed on the basis of adverse possession and without changing the facts, the basis was changed to be one of acquisition of permanent tenancy. Even after ten years the prayer was allowed. 7. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view it is to be examined whether the cause of action arises in this case and whether the delay in the prayer for amendment would be a ground for refusing the same. As has already been stated, the facts constituting the prayer for partition are not being changed. In case the compromise decree is valid there is no question of partition of the property again. Therefore, in the body of the plaint the validity of the compromise decree was assailed. No prayer has been made for setting aside the compromise decree which is now sought to be substituted by a prayer for partition. 8. In a decision reported in ILR 1975 Cutt. 729 (Narayan Nanda v. Sankar Sahuj the cause of action was explained to be the entire body of the facts in the plaint and not that which is stated in the paragraph describing cause of action, it was held that the mistake on the description of the cause of action would not affect the suit, since the cause of action would be determined on the reading of the entire body of the plaint. A Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in ILR 1976 Cutt. 1360 (Jemma alias Jamuna Maharani v. Raghu alias Raghunath Maharana) held that in a suit for injunction where the plaintiff is found to be out of possession, relief on recovery of possession can be granted if the same is an issue in the suit in which the plaintiff asks for such a relief and pays appropriate court-fees. In ILR 1976 Cuttack 344 (supra), there was a previous suit on the basis of a compromise decree. In ILR 1976 Cuttack 344 (supra), there was a previous suit on the basis of a compromise decree. Although no specific prayer was there for setting aside the decree in the body of the plaint the compromise decree was assailed. The amendment of the plaint, including such a relief was allowed since the defendants were not to controvert any new facts. I am fully satisfied on the facts of this case applying the principles decided in the aforesaid derisions that the trial Court exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity in refusing the prayer to amend the plaint, since on the facts it can safely be concluded that the nature of the suit does not change and the delay Would not affect the jurisdiction of the Court when the: defendants have opportunity to assail the facts in the suit pending trial. 9. Coming to the question of conduct of the plaintiff, as argued by Mr. Pati, the learned counsel for the deferidarits-opposite parties, the amendment possibly would not have been necessary in case the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act would not have come into force. Although relief of partition can be granted by the consolidation authorities they cannot set aside the compromise decree. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that to avoid the rigors of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act the plaintiff having filed the amendment the same amounts to misconduct. 10. The amendment, no doubt, causes prejudice to the defendants. This prejudice can be mitigated in case a cost of Rs. 250/- (two hundred fifty) is paid by the petitioner to the defendants-opposite parties. Therefore, the petitioner in this case shall pay a cost of Rs. 250/- to the defendants-opposite parties in this Court within two weeks from today failing which the order refusing permission to amend the plaint shall stand. 11. In the result, the civil revision is allowed subject to the conditions laid down above. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed