Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C against the order dated 06.11.2002 passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in I.A.No.178 of 2002 in O.S.No.107 of 1992,as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the Order of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil made in I.A.No.178 of 2002 in O.S.No.107 of 1992, dismissing the Application filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The Plaintiff is the Appellant. 2. O.S.No.107 of 1992: - The Plaintiff has filed this suit for Partition and separate possession of her half share in the Plaint Schedule Property. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff and the First Defendant are the Daughters of Jesu Neson Edward, who died on 17.04.1982. The Plaintiff is entitled to half share in the Plaint Schedule Properties. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Properties. The Plaintiff approached the First Defendant for effecting Partition of the Plaint Schedule Properties; but the First Defendant was not amenable for Partition. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Partition and Separate Possession of her half share in the Plaint Schedule Property. 3. The First Defendant has filed the Written Statement denying the Plaintiff's half share in the Suit Properties. The Defendant claims exclusive right in the Suit Items of properties through the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deeds executed by her Father - Jesu Neson Edward and Mother - Mercy. Item No.2 of the Plaint Schedule Property is said to be in possession of the stranger. The Plaintiff's Suit for Partition is strongly objected on the ground that the Plaintiff has no right to claim share in the Plaint Schedule Properties. 4. The Trial commenced. The Parties have adduced evidence. The evidence was completed and the case was pending for arguments. At that stage, the Plaintiffs have filed I.A.No. 178/02 seeking Amendment of the Plaint. The Amendment Application was filed challenging the genuineness of the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deeds referred to in the Written Statement. The details of the proposed Amendment sought to be included runs to Two to Three pages. 5. The Amendment Application is resisted by the Defendant contending that the Amendment Application has been filed belatedly. The Settlement Deed referred in the Written Statement executed in favour of the First Defendant is genuine and cannot be challenged. The details of the proposed Amendment sought to be included runs to Two to Three pages. 5. The Amendment Application is resisted by the Defendant contending that the Amendment Application has been filed belatedly. The Settlement Deed referred in the Written Statement executed in favour of the First Defendant is genuine and cannot be challenged. According to the Defendant, several paragraphs of the proposed Amendment sought to be introduced in the Plaint are nothing but a reproduction of the replication filed by the Plaintiff. By the proposed Amendment, the Plaintiff only seeks to fill in the lacuna in her evidence and thereby attempting to neutralise the effect of her admissions in the Cross-examination. 6. Learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the Amendment Application finding that the Application has been belatedly filed at the stage when the evidence was completed. Pointing out that the proposed Amendment introduces entirely a new case, contradictory to the earlier plea, learned Subordinate Judge declined the proposed Amendment. 7. Aggrieved over the order of dismissal in I.A.No.178 of 2002, the Plaintiff / Revision Petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the Amendment sought for by the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff is well within the scope of the Suit and it does not in any way change the character of the Suit. It is further submitted that the existence of the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deeds alleged to be executed by the Father and Mother of the Plaintiff in favour of the First Defendant came to the knowledge only after the filing of the Written Statement and the original documents have been produced by the First Defendant at the time of Trial in the year 1999. It is further submitted that in view of filing of C.R.P.No.2470 of 1997 by the First Respondent and the Interim Stay granted thereon, the Plaintiff was not able to file the Amendment Application earlier and that she filed the Amendment Application after the disposal of the C.R.P and the Lower Court has not properly appreciated the same. 8. The Suit was filed for Partition and Separate Possession. In the Plaint, the Plaintiff has alleged that "...the Plaintiff and the Defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Properties ...... and the Plaintiff has approached the Defendant for effecting Partition of the Plaint Schedule Properties .... 8. The Suit was filed for Partition and Separate Possession. In the Plaint, the Plaintiff has alleged that "...the Plaintiff and the Defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Properties ...... and the Plaintiff has approached the Defendant for effecting Partition of the Plaint Schedule Properties .... but the Defendant was not amenable for Partition". The First Defendant has filed elaborate Written Statement stating that the First Defendant got Item No.1 under the Settlement Deed executed by her Father Jesu Neson Edward 27.08.1966. In the Settlement Deed, Life Estate was reserved to her Father - Jesu Neson Edward and Mother – Mercy and thereafter the Defendant to have the right. Father - Jesu Neson Edward died on 17.04.1982. Mother – Mercy died on 12.10.1986. After their death, the Defendant is in absolute possession of Item No.1. Item No.2 of the Plaint Schedule Property was gifted to the First Defendant by her Father - Jesu Neson Edward. Item No.2 was already sold in 1988 and the present owner is in possession of the same. The present Owner – Possessor is not made as a party to the Suit. Item No.3 comprises of 1.94 acres, out of which the Parents had only 78 cents. That 78 cents was gifted to the First Defendant by her Father and Mother by a Gift Deed dated 23.08.1966. Under the aforesaid Gift Deed regarding Item NO.2, the Defendant got 22 cents of Patta Land on the South in S.No.413. 57 Cents has been gifted to the Defendant under the Gift Deed dated 04.11.1981 by Mother – Mercy. Thus, by the Gift Deeds dated 23.08.1966 and 04.11.1981, the Defendant got 78 cents in the Plaint Schedule, which comprises both in S.Nos.411 and 413. In the Written Statement, the Defendant interalia referred to the above Gift Deeds and Settlement Deed and claiming absolute Right and Title in the Suit Items of the Properties. 9. On the above pleadings, issues were framed. Parties also adduced evidence. At that stage when the evidence was completed, the Plaintiff has filed the Amendment Application in I.A.No.178 of 2002, seeking to amend the Plaint, challenging the genuineness of the Settlement Deed and Gift Deed. 9. On the above pleadings, issues were framed. Parties also adduced evidence. At that stage when the evidence was completed, the Plaintiff has filed the Amendment Application in I.A.No.178 of 2002, seeking to amend the Plaint, challenging the genuineness of the Settlement Deed and Gift Deed. Disputing the genuineness of those documents, the Plaintiff has raised the plea that the Father - Jesu Neson Edward and Mother – Mercy would not have executed the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deed in favour of the First Defendant. The Plaintiff has also raised the contention denying the signature of her Father in the Settlement Deed dated 27.08.1966. Contending that the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deeds are fabricated and fraudulent, the proposed Amendment is sought to be included, which runs to three pages. 10. The Amendment sought to be included in the Plaint introduces entirely a new case. The Plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce a fresh plea contrary to the original plea put forth in the Plaint. The proposed Amendment challenging the genuineness of the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deeds is inconsistent with the earlier case for Partition. The Plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce such inconsistent pleas. If the Plaintiff is allowed to amend the Plaint challenging the genuineness of the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deeds, the fundamental character of the pleadings would be altered as a result of which, the lis would be complicated which is wholly beyond the compass of original cause of action. The Plaintiff cannot be allowed to seek the Amendment completely changing the nature of her original plea in the Plaint. It is to be remembered that if such an Amendment of Plaint introducing a new cause of action, which completely alters the nature of the Suit is to be allowed, it would take away the vested right of limitation or any other valuable right accrued to the Defendant. Considering the original plea and the proposed Amendment, this Court is of the view that the Amendment would introduce a new case and the effect would virtually change the nature and the character of the case. 11. The question arises can the Amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side. Earlier the Suit was filed for Partition. By the proposed Amendment, the nature and the character of the Suit is changed. The parties have also adduced evidence. 11. The question arises can the Amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side. Earlier the Suit was filed for Partition. By the proposed Amendment, the nature and the character of the Suit is changed. The parties have also adduced evidence. If the Amendment is to be allowed, it would cause irreparable injury. By the proposed Amendment, the Defendant would not be placed in the same position at the time when the Suit was filed. 12. The inordinate delay in filing the Amendment Application is also to be noted. The Written Statement was filed by the First Defendant in 1993, basing her Title upon the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deeds executed by the Father and Mother. The Amendment Application was filed 10 years thereafter. 13. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the delay in filing the Amendment Application was caused mainly due to the earlier proceeding in I.A.No.99 of 1997 which was filed by the Respondent / Defendant, seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to examine her at her residence at Tambaram. As against the order of dismissal, the Respondent / Defendant has preferred C.R.P.No.2470 of 1997, which was dismissed on 31.01.2002. The Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff has filed the Amendment Application in March 2002. Filing of C.R.P.No.2470 of 1997 and the stay granted thereon might have caused some delay in further proceeding, but the same cannot be urged as justifiable ground for the delay in filing the Amendment Application. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent / Defendant has put forth defence claiming exclusive Right and Title upon the basis of the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deeds by filing the Written Statement even in the year 1993. There is no acceptable explanation for not filing the Amendment Application between 1993 and 1997. 14. Contending that the Amendment Application could be filed at any stage and that the same cannot be opposed on the ground that it is barred by limitation, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied upon the decision reported in Pankaja And Another ..Vs.. Yellappa (D) L.Rs And Others (2004 (4) C.T.C. 231). In the said Suit, a Suit for Bare Injunction and Possession without seeking a Declaration was filed. Later, nearly after six years, the Plaintiff filed an Application for Amendment of the Plaint, seeking for Declaration of their Title to the Suit Property thereon. Yellappa (D) L.Rs And Others (2004 (4) C.T.C. 231). In the said Suit, a Suit for Bare Injunction and Possession without seeking a Declaration was filed. Later, nearly after six years, the Plaintiff filed an Application for Amendment of the Plaint, seeking for Declaration of their Title to the Suit Property thereon. In the said case, the Amendment Application was only to include a Prayer on the same set of facts and pleadings already alleged in the Plaint. In the case in hand, the entire pleadings and the facts already averred in the Plaint are sought to be amended by changing the nature and the character of the Suit. Hence, the above decision of the Supreme Court cannot be applied to the case in hand. 15. Contending that the Amendment could be allowed at any stage, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further relied upon the decisions reported in 2004 (2) M.L.J. 411 and 2004 (3) M.L.J. 587 . In those cases, the Amendment Applications filed during the Trial stage were ordered to be amended that no new plea was introduced. The case in hand arises on a different factual matrix wherein the Suit for Partition has been sought to be altered challenging the genuineness of the Settlement Deed and the Gift Deeds executed in the year 1966 and 1981. Further placing reliance upon the decision reported in 2002 (4) C.T.C. 149, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner urged that a liberal approach is to be adopted to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. In the said Suit, the Supreme Court allowed the Amendment Application amending the Suit, which has been filed for Permanent Injunction as relief of Declaration of Title and Delivery of Possession on the ground that the Defendants have dispossessed the Plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the Suit. On that factual background, the Supreme Court allowed the Amendment Application finding that the Amendment sought for after eleven years was ordered to be allowed for determination of real question in controversy. In the said decision, the Amendment was sought for on the same set of facts. Only the nature of relief was sought to be changed. In this case, a Simple Suit for Partition is sought to be changed as a complex one challenging the genuineness of the Settlement Deed and Gift Deeds on the ground that those documents are forged and manipulated. 16. Only the nature of relief was sought to be changed. In this case, a Simple Suit for Partition is sought to be changed as a complex one challenging the genuineness of the Settlement Deed and Gift Deeds on the ground that those documents are forged and manipulated. 16. In a Partition Suit, the Amendment of Plaint seeking Declaration that the Gift Deed was obtained illegally and fraudulently filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be ordered. In the decision relied upon by the Respondent / Defendant reported in Radhika Devi ..Vs.. Bajrangi Singh (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2356), referring to the earlier decision reported in Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala ..Vs.. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 11), the Supreme Court has held "....In the present case, the gift deed was executed and registered as early as July 28, 1978 which is a notice to everyone. Even after filing of the Written Statement, for three years no steps were taken to file the application for amendment of the Plaint. Thereby the accrued right in favour of the respondents would be defeated by permitting amendment of the Plaint. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to grant permission to amend the Plaint...." Applying the above principle, the Revision Petitioner is not entitled to amend the Plaint which would prejudicially affect the right of the Respondent / Defendant. If such Amendment is to be allowed, it would cause serious prejudice to the Respondent / Defendant. That apart, it would also nullify the evidence already on record and in view of the change in the nature and character of the Suit, Additional Written Statement has to be filed and there has to be bonafide trial, which course cannot be allowed. 17. Taking note of the stage in which the Application was filed and the nature of the proposed Amendment, learned Subordinate Judge has rightly dismissed the Application declining the proposed Amendment. The Impugned Order does not suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference. This Civil Revision Petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 06.11.2002 of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in I.A.No.178 of 2002 in O.S.No.107 of 1992 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.18972 of 2002 is dismissed. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 06.11.2002 of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in I.A.No.178 of 2002 in O.S.No.107 of 1992 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.18972 of 2002 is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.107 of 1992 expeditiously in accordance with law.