J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) ). In this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Code) the petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the order passed below Ex. 42 on 10th April 1990 by the learned Joint District Judge Mehsana during the pendency of Regular Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1984 ( 2 ) ). The petitioners are the original defendants and opponents are the original plaintiffs. They are hereinafter referred to as arraigned in the plaint. Regular Civil Suit No. 54/79 came to he filed in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Visnagar for declaration that the plaintiffs have a right of way through the land of the defendants for the purpose of going to river Rupen and for the purpose of carrying dead bodies to the cremation ground. The plaintiff also claimed relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the enjoyment of right of way. The plaintiff filed the suit in the individual capacity. ( 3 ) ). The defendants-society appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement and raising inter alia contention about the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of parties. The issues came to be framed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Trial Court held that the suit is not maintainable on the ground on non-joinder of parties. The plaintiff carried the matter before the District Court by filing the aforesaid Regular Civil Appeal No. 99/84. The plaintiffs who were the appellants in the appeal before the District Court sought the permission by giving application Ex. 24 for withdrawal of the suit in view of the contentions raised by the defendants and the findings of the Trial Court. Application Ex. 24 seeking permission to withdraw the suit came to be rejected by the District Court. Thereafter the plaintiff applied for amendment in the plaint by giving an application Ex. 42 during the pendency of the appeal. The plaintiff inter alia contended that amendment is necessitated on account of rejection of an application raised by the defendants. By giving the application for amendment the plaintiff sought to implead the State of Gujarat and the District Panchayat Mehsana as parties. 42 during the pendency of the appeal. The plaintiff inter alia contended that amendment is necessitated on account of rejection of an application raised by the defendants. By giving the application for amendment the plaintiff sought to implead the State of Gujarat and the District Panchayat Mehsana as parties. They also sought the permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code for filing suit in representative capacity in view of the contention raised by the defendants in the suit and also consequential reliefs. ( 4 ) ). After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances the learned District Judge was pleased to allow the amendment as prayed for on 10th April 1990. Hence this revision by the original defendants. ( 5 ) ). Initially it may be mentioned that the jurisdictional scope of revision under Section 115 of the Code is very much circumscribed. It is a settled proposition of law that Section 115 of the Code empowers this Court to satisfy itself on three matters i. e. (1) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; (2) that the case is one in which the Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction; and (3) that in exercising the powers the court has not committed any illegality i. e. in breach of some provisions of law or with material irregularity. If this Court is satisfied on these three aspects it has no power to interfere because it differs from the conclusions of the Subordinate Court on the question of facts or law. ( 6 ) ). In the light of the facts and circumstances it cannot be said even for a moment that jurisdictional error is committed by the Subordinate Court while granting the application Ex. 42 for amendment in the plaint. The present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 115 of the Code. Apart from that the discretion exercised by the Appellate Court in granting the application Ex. 42 for amendment in the plaint cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. The impugned order passed below Ex. 42 clearly sets out the grounds and reasons for giving permission to amend the plaint while allowing Ex. 42. Apart from that the discretion exercised by the Appellate Court in granting the application Ex. 42 for amendment in the plaint cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. The impugned order passed below Ex. 42 clearly sets out the grounds and reasons for giving permission to amend the plaint while allowing Ex. 42. This Court ordinarily would be at loath to interfere with the exercise of discretionary powers by the subordinate courts under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code unless manifest perversity or illegality is pointed out. The learned Advocate Mr. Jani has placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Modi Spg. and Wvg. v. Ladharam and Co. AIR 1977 SC 680 (2) Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. v. Bhagvanji 1983 GLH 274 . (3) Raman Lal v. Amithabhai 1986 GLR 451 . The principles laid down in the aforesaid three decisions are no longer in controversy It is a settled proposition of law that amendment can be refused if the cause of action is changed or if the frame of the suit or the nature of the dispute is altogether changed by the proposed amendment So is not the factual scenario in the present case. Therefore the aforesaid three decisions are inapplicable to the facts of the present case Moreover this Court is also satisfied that in view of the refusal to grant permission to withdraw the suit and the specific contentions raised in the written statement about the non-joinder of party and the maintainability amendment application Ex. 42 is rightly allowed by the Appellate Court. ( 7 ) ). The learned Counsel for the petitioners original defendants has submitted that the defendants will be entitled to file additional written statement and raise all contentions in light of the amended plaint. Obviously this proposition cannot be questioned and rightly not questioned on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff Appellate Court therefore will have to proceed with the appeal in accordance with law giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners-original defendants. ( 8 ) ). In the circumstances the present revision is without any merits and is required to be straightway rejected Accordingly it is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .