Judgment : 1. Theplaintiffs, who failed, as appellant, before the first appellate Court, in amending the plaint, seeking for damages, are the revision petitioners. 2. Elsewhere in 1994, the revision petitioners have filed the suit against the respondent/Panchayat for permanent injunction. As rightly claimed by the other side, inviting my attention to para 2 of the plaint, where it is said, the delivery proceedings is still pending, thereby showing the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property. Pending suit, according to the plaintiffs, it appears, road has been laid and therefore, an amendment was sought for on 14.4.1999, seeking mandatory injunction, for the removal of the road, which was allowed by the trial Court. Thereafter when the trial came to an end, it disclosed that the plaintiffs/revision petitioners are not entitled to any relief and in this view, the suit came to be dismissed on 12.7.2000, which is under challenge in A.S. No. 89 of 2000 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kuzhithurai. 3. The plaintiffs/revision petitioners, once again, moved an application to amend the plaint, under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., to include a prayer for damages or compensation which reads: “the defendant may be directed to pay damages/compensation for the area illegally taken for the formation of the road from the suit property of the plaintiff, assessed on the basis of the market value, prevalent in the locality along with interest on the amount from May, 1998.” 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, considering the contention and rival contention, as well as the conduct of the parties, in addition, the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., came to the conclusion that the amendment petitioner itself is not maintainable, as well as concluding, that if the relief in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions is altered, adding additional prayer, that will change the character of the suit, and in this view, dismissed the amendment application, as per the order dated 21.11.2003, which is under challenge in this revision. 5. Heard both. 6. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent when the plaintiffs seek damages or compensation, they must quantify the damages for which, they should pay the Court Fee also. Admittedly, as seen from the amendment application, the plaintiffs have not quantified the damage or compensation, though they would claim that the compensation has to be determined on the basis of the market value. Admittedly, as seen from the amendment application, the plaintiffs have not quantified the damage or compensation, though they would claim that the compensation has to be determined on the basis of the market value. In the absence of specific amount, offering to pay the Court Fee and making necessary amendments for payment of Court Fee, etc. the petition for amendment is not at all maintainable and on this ground, alone, which is also considered by the first appellate Court, in detail, the amendment petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. As rightly claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent, the alleged encroachment was, elsewhere in 1998, that was not available on the date of suit, and therefore, the subsequent cause of action should also find place in the amendment, which is absent in the case. It is not the case of the revision petitioners that they are not aware of the fact that they are entitled for compensation, when the cause of action had arisen in 1998. Knowing that even, they have not pleaded change of cause of action, on that basis also, the amendment petition is liable to be dismissed. By the introduction of the proposed amendment, the entire scope of the case also will be changed, warranting even remand, which should be prevented, considering the conduct of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs had an occasion to claim compensation, when they had sought the amendment for mandatory injunction, they ought to have raised the same. Considering all these facts, the trial Court, in a way, dismissed the application, which is also acceptable to me. In this view, I do not find any merit in the revision, liable to be dismissed. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 10261 of 2004 is also dismissed.