Judgment 1. The revision petitioners are the defendants/respondents and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs/petitioners before the lower court. 2. The revision petition is directed as against the order dated 11.9.1998 in I.A.No.1183 of 1998 in O.S.No.197 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsifs Court at Ramanathapuram. 3. The application in I.A.No.1183 of 1998 in O.S.No.197 of 1995 on the file of Additional District Munsifs Court at Ramanathapuram is filed under O.6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., to amend the plant as well as the description of property as set out in the amendment application. It was opposed by the revision petitioners/defendants herein by filing a counter statement. After considering the rival contentions of both the parties, the learned Additional District Munsif of Ramanathapuram allowed the amendment application in I.A.No.1183 of 1998 on 11.9.1998 against which the present revision petition is filed. 4. When the revision petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that the proposed amendment sought for by the respondents/plaintiffs herein is nothing but an introduction of a new case and so this revision petition must be admitted. The above contention is negatived by a decision of our High Court reported in Srimathy v. Executive Engineer and Adminstrative Officer, Tirunelveli Housing Unit, (1996)1 MLJ. 408 wherein it was pointed out that a new cause of action can well be allowed to be taken by way of an amendment provided it is an alternative plead. In one other decision of our Madras High Court reported in Sanjivi Devar v. Manicka Devar , (1966)1 MLJ. 561 it was pointed out it is now well settled that a court should adopt a liberal attitude in allowing amendment or pleadings. To the similar effect is the decision of Our Madras High Court reported in Chinnasami Naicker v. Kandasami Gounder , (1969)1 MLJ. 393 wherein it was observed that amendment of pleadings should be freelyallowed at whatever stage it is asked for, but this can only be subject to the question of limitation. 5. To the similar effect is the decision of Our Madras High Court reported in Chinnasami Naicker v. Kandasami Gounder , (1969)1 MLJ. 393 wherein it was observed that amendment of pleadings should be freelyallowed at whatever stage it is asked for, but this can only be subject to the question of limitation. 5. In yet another decision of the Supreme Court reported in Nichalbhat v. Jaswantlal , A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 997 it was laid down as follows: “As the object of the rule in O.6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. for allowing amendments to the plaint was to avoid multiplicity of suits, this was a proper case in which the court should allow the plaint to be amended, otherwise if the amendment were refused, the plaintiff would have to bring another suit.” Therefore, it is open to the plaintiff to plead a new cause of action or to set up a new case provided it is not barred by the law of limitation. In the present case it is not the case of the revision petitioners defendants that the proposed amendment as set out in the amendment application filed by the respondents/plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation. Therefore the lower court was right in allowing the amendment application which not only seeks to amend the pleadings in the plaint but also the description of property as well as to include the alternative relief of possession. 6. One another contention that was advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners/defendants herein is that the respondents/plaintiff are not entitled to seek any amendment in the description of property mentioned in the plaint unless the plaint document was rectified, and the amendment asked for is not changing the description of property but also the location and nature of the property. Such a contention was negatived by our Madras High Court in another decision reported in Umsalima Bibi v. Jayaraman Umsalima Bibi v. Jayaraman Umsalima Bibi v. Jayaraman , (1987)2 MLJ. 18 whereinit was stated as follows: “Amendment of plaint seeking to change the survey number is permissible.” 7. Such a contention was negatived by our Madras High Court in another decision reported in Umsalima Bibi v. Jayaraman Umsalima Bibi v. Jayaraman Umsalima Bibi v. Jayaraman , (1987)2 MLJ. 18 whereinit was stated as follows: “Amendment of plaint seeking to change the survey number is permissible.” 7. In yet another decision of the Supreme Court in Gopi Pillai v. Dr.Swamy Gopi Pillai v. Dr.Swamy Gopi Pillai v. Dr.Swamy , (1990)1 L.W. 363 (S.C.) it was laid down that the plaintiff sought an amendment of the plaint in order to add the relief of possession in case he was not found to be in possession of the property in dispute, it can be allowed even after the amendment was sought for after a number of witnesses were examined. 8. In one another decision Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in Roshan Lal v. Union of India , A.I.R. 1966 H.P. 1 it was held that the amendment seeking the alternative relief of possession can be allowed even if it deprives the defendant of his plea as to the maintainability of the suit. 9. Applying the above said legal principles to the facts of the present case even if the proposed amendment sought by the respondents/plaintiffs herein will change the description of property and also the location and nature of the property nd the alternative relief of possession will deprive the defendants about the maintainability of the suit, even then the amendment can be allowed subject only to the question of limitation. At the risk of repetition it must be stated that it is not the contention of the revision petitioners/defendants that the proposed amendment is barred under any one of the Articles of the Limitation Act of 1963, There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the trial court in allowing the amendment application in I.A.No.1183 of 1998. 10. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case I am to hold that this revision petition is devoid of merits, and the same has to be dismissed with out costs, and the fair and decretal order assessed by the Additional District Munsif of Ramanathapuram in I.A.No.1183 of 1998 in O.S.No.197 of 1995 dated 11.9.1998 are to be confirmed, and consequently, I answer this point as against the revision petitioners/defendants and in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. 11. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed without costs. 11. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed without costs. The fair and decretal order dated 11.9.1998 passed in I.A.No.1183 of 1998 in O.S.No.197 of 1995 on the file of Additional District Munsifs Court at Ramanathapuram are confirmed. 12. Consequently the stay petition in C.M.P.No.17085 of 1998 is also dismissed as unnecessary.