JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.7.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur whereby the application filed by the plaintiff u /O. VI, R. 17 CPC was rejected. 2. The brief history of the case is that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit to recover Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages from the defendants on the ground that on 13.2.1993, the certain employees, Officers and labourers of defendant No. 1 came to her plot in question and demolished the stone wall standing on the boundary of her plot No. 150. The above wall was covered by stone slabs and those stone slabs were broken into pieces. They also caused other damages to the property of the plaintiff. This was done in utter disregard and violation of the Court's order. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed damages. 3. The defendants denied the allegations of the plaintiff and also denied that the plaintiff derived title of the property from Anantram Babulal or Rawatsingh. The defendants also denied possession of the plaintiff over the land in question. 4. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application u/ O. VI, R. 17 CPC. In the said application, it was alleged that the defendants in their written statement denied the title and possession or Anant Ram Babulal or that of Rawatsingh from whom the plaintiff derived her title and possession. The plaintiff claimed that she has been in possession of the above land for the last more than 35 years. She, therefore, wanted to take a plea of adverse possession and other consequential amendments. This application was resisted by the defendants. The learned trial Court vide his order dated 11.7.1997 dismissed the above application filed by the plaintiff. 5. I have heard Mr. R.M. Bhansali, the learned counsel, appearing for the plain-tiff-petitioner and M/s. B.R. Mehta and Rewachand for the defendants-non-petitioners and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. It may be stated here that in the plaint, the plaintiff has not averred that she has been in adverse possession of the above land. This fact was within her knowledge but she never chose to make such an allegation in the plaint. Thus, if the amendment sought by the plaintiff is allowed, the nature of the 'suit would be changed. The suit would then of for declaration and thus, the cause of action would also be changed. This fact was within her knowledge but she never chose to make such an allegation in the plaint. Thus, if the amendment sought by the plaintiff is allowed, the nature of the 'suit would be changed. The suit would then of for declaration and thus, the cause of action would also be changed. It is settled law that the amendment can be allowed even at a later stage if the same does not cause any prejudice to the opposite party and the nature of the suit is not changed. However, the amendment sought changes the very foundation of the suit and also seeks to introduce a distinct case, such amendments deserve to be refused. 7. In this view of the matter, I find no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costsRevision Dismissed. *******