JUDGMENT 1. - This is plaintiffs' revision under Section 115. C.P.C. against the order dated October 12, 1993 of the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (South), Udaipur passed in case No. 232/93 whereby the learned Additional Munsif rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner-plaintiffs are artisans and have been doing the occupation of brick kilns on the land in dispute for the last more than 50 years. The defendants-non petitioners unauthorisedly wanted to encroach upon the above land and to usurp the possession of the land. With this purpose the defendants started collecting stones for erecting boundary wall. The plaintiffs alleged that taking advantage of the holiday falling on August 30, 1987, the defendants commenced the work of construction of boundary wall. The plaintiff objected to the above encroachment. The brick kilns of the plaintiffs are existing on the above land. Apprehending further trouble at the hands of the defendants, the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land in question and also from raising any construction over the above land. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction. The learned Court appointed a commissioner for inspecting the site and submitting his report. The plaintiffs have stated that the learned Civil Judge, having found a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, granted temporary injunction granting the aforesaid reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs and the same was confirmed later on. 3. The defendants filed their written statements and claimed title over the above land. Since the plaintiffs have been in possession of the above land for more than 40-50 years and their possession was threatened by the defendants, they decided to seek amendment in the pleadings in view of the strategy as set up by the defendants. The plaintiffs, therefore, by moving amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. sought amendment for the relief in the alternative that the plaintiffs are in adverse possession for the last 40 years, for a declaration that in case possession is taken from the plaintiffs the same be restored to them. The plaintiffs also sought consequential amendment in the valuation clause in the suit. 4. The plaintiffs also sought consequential amendment in the valuation clause in the suit. 4. The application was resisted by the defendants on the ground that such amendments could not be allowed to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as, if such amendments are allowed, the nature of the suit would be changed and the relief claimed by the plaintiff by way of amendment has become barred by time. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the above application of the petitioners. 5. I have heard Shri R.P. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Shrimali for non petitioners. Shri Dave has submitted that by seeking the above amendment the nature of the suit would not be changed at all. The essential basis of the suit of the plaintiffs is their claim of possession. The amendment by setting up a plea of adverse possession is also based on the concept of possession. The plaintiffs are, therefore, claiming the amendment on the basis of the facts and averments already made in the plaint. It is settled law that the Courts generally allow amendments when they are necessary for determination of the real controversy in the suit. He has cited Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, AIR 1985 SC 817 for the proposition that normally amendment is not allowed if it changes the cause of action. But it is well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action, or raise a new case, but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on the record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation. The case of the petitioners-plaintiffs is fully covered by the above settled proposition of the Apex Court. He has also relied on Kanailal Das v. Jiban Kanai Das, AIR 1977 Calcutta 189 , Smt. Mohani v. Mst. Gopli alias Shanti, 1990(1) RLR 553 and Ishwar Das v. State of M.P., AIR 1979 SC 541 . 6. Shri Shrimali, learned counsel for the non petitioners defendants supported the order of the trial Court on the ground that by seeking amendment for settling the plea of adverse possession the plaintiffs are making an attempt to change the nature of the suit. The valuation of the land in question, if valued at the market rate, will go in lacs of rupees. The valuation of the land in question, if valued at the market rate, will go in lacs of rupees. The plaintiffs will be required to value the relief now sought to be claimed by him. If it is done so the suit would be beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Such an amendment cannot be allowed. The plaintiffs were aware of the nature of their possession all along. They ought to have taken the plea of adverse possession in the plaint itself when the same was filed instead of waiting for the defence raised by the defendants. It was also argued that after the amendment the relief claimed by the plaintiffs would be barred by time. Article 58 of the Limitation Act will apply. 7. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the case laws cited before me. The principles established by judicial decisions in respect of the amendment of plaint are that all amendments will be generally allowed when they are necessary for the determination of the real controversy in the suit. Substitution of one cause of action or the nature of the claim for another in the original plaint or change of the subject matter of controversy in the suit is not permissible. The amendment should not cause prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated in costs. Similarly, amendment of a claim or relief which is barred by time when the amendment is sought to be made should not be allowed to defeat a legal right accrued except when such consideration is outweighed by the special circumstances of the case. In the instant case, it may be remembered that the plaintiff is seeking to raise the plea of adverse possession. The plaintiffs are not in a position to furnish evidence of their title. They are, therefore, relying on the presumptive title based on possession. It cannot be guessed that the plea of adverse possession is based on the fact of possession. The plaintiffs have made a categorical averment that they have been in possession of the above land for more than 40-50 years. The amendment in valuation of the relief is consequential and it does not change the nature of the suit. In Smt. Mohani v. Mst. The plaintiffs have made a categorical averment that they have been in possession of the above land for more than 40-50 years. The amendment in valuation of the relief is consequential and it does not change the nature of the suit. In Smt. Mohani v. Mst. Gopli alias Shanti, 1990(1) RLR 553 , the plea of adverse possession was allowed to be raised by amendment even in second appeal on costs by this Court. The amendment sought by the plaintiffs do not tend to change the nature of the suit. The plea of adverse possession is based on the averment of possession categorically made by the plaintiffs in their suit. The amendment in respect of the Court-fee is also consequential in nature. The amendment sought is at the initial stage of the suit. 8. For the above reasons I accept the revision and allow the amendments sought by the plaintiff on payment of costs of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) to be paid or tendered to the opposite party within a period of one month from the date of this order. The plaintiffs shall file the amended plaint. The defendants will be given liberty to file another written statement thereafter and the Court will proceed with the suit in accordance with law.'Petition allowed. *******