ORDER: The petitioners are the defendants. 2. The respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.419 of 1995 for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the petitioners/ defendants. The original survey number for the suit property was 231-B of Vriapalayam Village. After examination of D.W.1 on the side of the defendants, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed an application on 9.3.1999 seeking for amendment of the plaint stating that the original survey number 231-B has been resurveyed as 128/3 and the suit property has been included in S.F.No.231A and therefore, the same has to be amended suitably. 3. This was opposed to by the petitioners/ defendants on the ground that the application for amendment of suit property would change the entire character of the suit and the application for amendment has been filed to fill up the lacuna found in the case of the plaintiffs. 4. The trial Court upheld the contention of the respondents/ plaintiffs and allowed the said application. Hence, this civil revision petition by the petitioners/ defendants. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is settled law that the amendment can be made at any stage when there is no new cause of action and when no fresh or additional relief is sought for. 7. The prayer made in the application filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs before the trial Court would show the following particulars of amendment: Particulars of Amendment: (1) Change S.F.No.231-B as G.S.No.231B. Add S.F.No.231A and R.S.No.238/3 strike out 2.47 acres and in that place P.H. 0.12.0 (p.a. 0.30) (2) At page No.2, in the 2nd line, change S.F.No.231B as G.S.No.231 B- and add S.F.No.231A and R.S.NO.123/3. (3) At page No.1 (in para 3) in the 2nd line, change S.F.No.231B as G.S.No.231B and add S.F.No.231A and R.s.No.128/3." 8. The above particulars would show that the prayer is not only changing of the survey number to the present survey number, but also to replace the extent of the area which is not mentioned in the original plaint. 9. Mere amending of old survey number into new survey number and the modification of S.F. number to G.S. Number may not create fresh cause of action. But, adding the extent of the area would give rise to fresh or additional relief by the plaintiffs. The impugned order does not clarify this. 10. 9. Mere amending of old survey number into new survey number and the modification of S.F. number to G.S. Number may not create fresh cause of action. But, adding the extent of the area would give rise to fresh or additional relief by the plaintiffs. The impugned order does not clarify this. 10. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for consideration of the application afresh with reference to the above aspect and pass orders in accordance with law after hearing the counsel for the parties. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs would cite the decision in Prem Bakshi and others v. Dharam Dev and others, (2002)1 Supreme 40 in order to show that the civil revision petition cannot be entertained unless there is some special condition exist. 12. One of the conditions for entertaining the civil revision petition is that the order impugned has caused failure of justice or irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. If the petitioner/ defendants feel that if there is irreparable injury caused to him by allowing the amendment which rise to fresh relief, this Court would certainly entertain the revision and pass appropriate orders. 13. Accordingly, as indicated above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. 14. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is allowed.