JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that a plot of land measuring 31' x IS, was agreed to be sold to him for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by agreement dated 27-4-1984 and he was put in possession of this land. but his possession was being interferred with by the non-petitioner and she should be restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over this land. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint making a prayer that specific performance of the contract dated 7.4.1984 be decreed and the non-petitioner be directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 2. This application has been disallowed by the trial court, namely, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Kota, holding that the nature of the suit would change if the amendment was allowed and the application was submitted at a very late stage. Against this order the present revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts should be liberal in allowing amendments and it is only when the other party is put to such injustice which cannot be compensated by costs that the application should be refused. It is contended that the rules and procedures are hands made of justice and parties should not be made to suffer on account of mistakes committed by them, if they can be set right at a later stage. According to him the cause of action in the present case does not change because the suit is already on basis of agreement executed by the non-petitioner and if the relief of specific performance is allowed to be incorporated then the suit would remain on the basis of same document. 4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner has taken several objections. First of all it is contended that the application has been moved at a very late stage. According to him this court in another revision directed the trial court to expeditiously dispose the suit, but it could not do so because of the application submitted by the petitioner. Secondly, it is contended that the relief which the petitioner wants to include by way of amendment is barred by the provisions of the Order 2. According to him this court in another revision directed the trial court to expeditiously dispose the suit, but it could not do so because of the application submitted by the petitioner. Secondly, it is contended that the relief which the petitioner wants to include by way of amendment is barred by the provisions of the Order 2. Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code and also by the law of Limitation. If the amendment is allowed them the petitioner would be allowed to bring a suit and make a prayer, which he cannot get by instituting another suit. 5. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the suit at present is only for grant of injunction and for restraining from interfering with the possession of the petitioner, but would be changed as mentioned in the amendment sought by the petitioner. The cause of action for making specific performance of the contract is said to have accrued during the pendency of the suit when the non-petitioner denied the agreement in her written statement and this shows that the nature of the suit would change if the amendment is allowed. Moreover the non-petitioner has claimed that she is in possession of the property and the contention of the petitioner that he is possession is incorrect. With this background the nature of the suit would change if the amendment is allowed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (1) Palavalasa Appalaswamy and another v. Dantaluri Narayana Gajapathiraju, AIR 1917 Mad 624 , wherein the suit for possession based on a compromise filed in a previous suit, but this compromise was not registered, it was held that the suit framed upon the title and not for specific performance, the court could allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint by asking for specific performance of the agreement subject to any objection as to limitation. 7. In Maruti & others v. Ranganath, AIR 1955 Hyd. 1 , it has been held that new grounds of claim can be allowed where the court considers it just and necessary and that amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. 7. In Maruti & others v. Ranganath, AIR 1955 Hyd. 1 , it has been held that new grounds of claim can be allowed where the court considers it just and necessary and that amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. In this case suit was for declaration ownership and when it was found that be was cut of possession, they were permitted to add a prayer for possession, as this does not change the cause of action or the essential nature of the suit. 8. In (3) Pirgonda Hongonda v Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, AIR 1957 SC 363 .', it has been held that the amendments which do not work injustice to the other side and which are necessary for purpose of determining the real question in controversies between the parties should be allowed. 9. In (4) Jai Jai Ram Manoharlal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , it has been held that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertance or even infraction of the rules and procedure. 10. On the other band the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has placed reliance upon (5) Bhubaneshwar Patel v. Janak Patel and others, AIR 1976 Orissa 216 , in which it has been held that where the plaintiffs sought for declaration on the strength of their purchase and by proposed amendment claimed title by inheritance, the amendment would alter the very foundation of the claim and introduce a distinct and separate cause of action converting the suit in to another of altotally different character necessitating a fresh trial, then such amendment should not be allowed. 11. In (6) Anganimal v/s Muthupa Chigammal & Anr., AIR 1976 Mad. 282 , it was held that amendment seeking relief totally unconnected with original prayer cannot be allowed The original prayer in this case was a declaration on the basis of easement of necessity and the amendment prayer was that he was the owner of the property, he should be granted mandatory injunction to demolish the wall on the disputed pathway, it was not allowed as being unconnected with the original prayer. 12. 12. In (7) Ashwath Rao and others v. Sushilabal other, AIR 1971 Mysore 141 , it was held that a suit for partition of could not be changed into a suit for title and possession against the third parties, who claim title in themselves. 13. In (8) Kumarswami Gounder and others v. D R. Nanjappa Goonder and others, AIR 1978 Mad. 285 , it has been decided that under the guise of an amendment a new cause and a case cannot be substituted and the courts cannot be asked to adjudicate the alternative case instead of the original case. 14. The principles of law which have been discussed in the above decisions can be said to be based on Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code and cannot be disputed. However, these principles are to be applied to the facts of the present case and it will only be decided then as to whether the cause of action can be said to have changed by the amendment or not. Under order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code the court can allow amendments to any stage of the proceedings by imposing such terms as can be said to be just, which may be necessary for purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties Order 2. Rule 2 provides that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which plaintiff is entitled to claim in respect of the cause of action Any claim which he has omitted to make shall not be available to him by way of another suit. While considering both these provisions together it can be said that the relief which has already been in a suit can be allowed by making amendments on the basis of the same, if the basis cannot be said to be entirely different so as to change the nature of the suit. However the relief which cannot be said to be connected with the original relief in the suit cannot be allowed by way of amendment. It is on the basis of this principle that in injunction suits where it is found that the party is out of possession, he is allowed to include a prayer of possession as it is already covered in the dispute between the parties. It is on the basis of this principle that in injunction suits where it is found that the party is out of possession, he is allowed to include a prayer of possession as it is already covered in the dispute between the parties. When the nature of relief claimed by why of amendment is entirely different and would change the nature of the suit then it cannot be allowed to be included by way of amendment. In the present case the petitioner has claimed to be in possession over the property by virtue of agreement entered into with the non-petitioner and has claimed that the latter should be restrained from interfering with his possession. The agreement has been referred to in order to show the source of his possession. So the main enquiry is as to whether the petitioner is in possession or not and whether the non- petitioner is interfering with that possession. This being the real question in controversy the introduction of the relief about specific performance of the contract would change the nature of the suit as well as questions in controversy. The two relief; cannot be said to be connected so as to say that the amendment would only introduce a consequential and connected relief. In my view the learned lower court has in its discretion exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of settled principles of law and when it can be said that the cause of action would change by the introduction of the amendment then the order does not require any interference. It may also be observed that this order does not in any way determine the question whether the subsequent suit would be barred by provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code or not. 15. The revision has no force and is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******