Judgment 1. Heard Sri Rajni Kant Jha for the petitioner and Dr. Ravi Ranjan for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 11.3.2003, passed by the Munsif-I, Civil Court, Hajipur in Title Suit No. 183 of 2001 by which the court below rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for amendment in the plaint on the ground that the amendment, sought for, will change the nature of the suit. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants praying, inter-alia, that he be not dispossessed from the suit property without the due process of law, as he apprehended that the land lord defendants may evict him from the suit property without resorting to the provisions of law. He prayed for grant of interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The said-prayer was refused by the court below under order dated 10.1.2002 as contained in annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed by the defendants-opposite parties. After refusal of the prayer for interim injunction, he was dispossessed from the subject matter of the suit. The factum of dispossession the plaintiff desires to incorporate in the plaint by praying for the amendment. This amendment has been refused necessitating the filing of the civil revision application. 4. In support of the civil revision application, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the amendment, sought for, the plaintiff is only trying to incorporate in the plaint the subsequent development. As such, there should not be any difficulty in incorporating the sarr the plaint. Learned counsel in suppo the aforesaid plea has placed before the judgment in the case of Samp Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and another, ported in 2002(7) SCC 559 . 5. Learned counsel for the opposit parties, however, submitted that the has initially framed and filed was for spec relief i.e. grant of permanent injunctic therefore, the plaintiff should not be lowed to amend the same to include rest ration of possession. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and in view of the Supreme Courtjudgment in the case of Sampath Kuma (supra), I am of the opinion that if th amendment, sought for, is allowed the same will not change the basic structure of the suit and in that view of the matter, there should be no difficulty in allowing the amendment in the plaint. I, accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct that the amendment, sought for, should be incorporated in the plaint with liberty to the defendants to file additional written statement or seek amendment in the written statement already filed. 7. Civil revision application is allowed. No cost.