Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition, filed under Sec.115 Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 04.09.2002 passed in I.A.No.133 of 2002 in O.S.No.158 of 1992 by the Second Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Second Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli dated 04.09.2002 in I.A.No.133 of 2002 in O.S.No.158 of 1992, dismissing the Petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C seeking to amend the Plaint. 2. O.S.No.158 of 1992:- The Suit Property relates to 6 Acres 4 Cents in Survey No.584/1 Keelaveeraraghapuram Village, Melapalayam Registration Sub District, Tirunelveli Registration District. Case of the Plaintiffs is that the Suit Property and other properties were originally purchased by V.S.T.Thamus Thaseem Tharaganar from one Abdul Kader Tharaganar under the Registered Sale Deed dated 09.01.1908. The Purchaser - V.S.T.Thamus Thaseem Tharaganar was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Later, he has endowed the said properties by the Wakf Nama dated 26.12.1931. The Suit Property is given as Item No.19 in the said Sale Deed. Ever since the endowment, the suit property forms part of the Wakf Nama after the Founder V.S.T.Thamus Thaseem Tharaganar. The Charities in the Wakf Nama are duly performed by its Turn Huqdars. The Suit Property and other Items of Property have also been duly notified by Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board and is mentioned in the proforma maintained by the Board. The Defendants have no right or Title over the enjoyment of the property. Under a false claim, alleging that they are entitled to the suit properties, the Defendants are making attempts to forcibly enter into the suit property. The efforts of the Plaintiffs to prevent the action of the Defendant ended in vain. Hence, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for - (i) declaring that the Plaint Schedule property belongs to the Plaintiffs / Wakf. (ii) Consequently passing an order of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and derivatives in interest from unlawfully interfering with the Plaintiffs' Wakfs' lawful possession of the schedule property and for other reliefs. 3. Denying the averments in the suit, the Defendants have filed the Written Statement contending that the suit property and other items of properties originally belonged to V.S.T.Thamus Thaseem Tharaganar (Plaintiffs' Grandfather) and Meeran Mydeen(Defendants' Father) and Shekh Mansoor Tharaganar (Paternal Uncle of the Defendants). 3. Denying the averments in the suit, the Defendants have filed the Written Statement contending that the suit property and other items of properties originally belonged to V.S.T.Thamus Thaseem Tharaganar (Plaintiffs' Grandfather) and Meeran Mydeen(Defendants' Father) and Shekh Mansoor Tharaganar (Paternal Uncle of the Defendants). In the Family Partition on 26.04.1916, the Suit Property was allotted to the Defendants Paternal uncle - Shekh Mansoor Tharaganar and Defendants Father – Meeran Mydeen. They were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the subsequent partition between Shekh Mansoor Tharaganar and his Brother by the Partition Deed dated 04.09.1928, Shekh Mansoor Tharaganar and Meeran Mydeen were each allotted to 3 acres and 2 cents. The Defendants being the Daughters of Meera Mydeen and other family members have divided the property – 3 acres and 2 cents amongst themselves. The property has been alienated to various persons and they are in possession of the same. The Suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties viz., legal heirs of Mansoor Tharaganar. Further, according to the Defendants, patta stands in the joint name of the Defendants and other purchasers, who have also purchased the property from the Defendants paternal Uncle - Shekh Mansoor Tharaganar. The Purchasers have also put up constructions / houses and the suit filed for declaration – permanent injunction is not maintainable. 4. I.A.No.71 of 2002: - At the time when the Suit in O.S.No.158 of 1992 was pending, this Application was filed to restrain the Defendants not to alienate the suit properties. In the said Application, Interim Injunction is said to have been granted. Alleging that even when the Suit is pending on 18.05.2000, the Defendants have sold a portion of the suit property to (1) Abdul Mydeen alias Abdulla (2) Sahul Hameed and (3) Habitha Beevi. The Defendants have no right to alienate the portion of the Suit Property. On the basis of the Sale Deeds, the purchasers have obtained the Patta and have also put up constructions. Defendants 1 to 3 have also filed another Suit in O.S.No.458 of 1992 for declaration and possession. Under such circumstances, stating that subsequent purchasers R-5 to R-11 are necessary parties and are to be impleaded as the Defendants 5 to 11. The Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.71 of 2002 for impleading. Upon hearing the parties, the impleading Petition in I.A.No.71 of 2002 was allowed on 05.07.2002. 5. Under such circumstances, stating that subsequent purchasers R-5 to R-11 are necessary parties and are to be impleaded as the Defendants 5 to 11. The Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.71 of 2002 for impleading. Upon hearing the parties, the impleading Petition in I.A.No.71 of 2002 was allowed on 05.07.2002. 5. I.A.No.133 of 2002: - This Petition was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C for Amendment pursuant to the order in I.A.No.71 of 2002. Instead of merely seeking of impleading parties D-5 to D-11, the Plaintiffs have sought for amendment relating to the description of property by including the Second Schedule and also amending the prayer in the Suit as:- (i) ordering recovery of possession of the Second Schedule Properties to the Plaintiffs from Defendants 9 to 11 (ii) directing the Defendants 9 to 11 to remove the unauthorised construction made on the Second Schedule property on a date to be fixed by the Court failing which the same may be removed by way of Mandatory Injunction through the Court. The details of the proposed Amendment have been set forth in the Petition. 6. The Defendants and the proposed parties have resisted the Application contending that the proposed Amendment would change the character of the Suit. It is further alleged that the proposed Amendments sought for is not pursuant to the impleading Petition ordered in I.A.No.71 of 2002. In the Counter Statement, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has also been raised contending that only the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction. 7. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, learned District Munsif dismissed the petition on the ground that the Amendment Petition has not been filed merely for amending the newly impleading parties consequential to the order in I.A.No.71 of 2002. Learned District Munsif has further held that the proposed Amendment seeking for recovery of possession and for Mandatory Injunction for removal of the Construction regarding the Second Schedule property would alter the character of the Suit. The Petition was mainly dismissed on the ground that the proposed Amendment would change the character of the Suit and is not in the nature of mere consequential Amendment pursuant to the order in I.A.No.71 of 2002. 8. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Petition, Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs have preferred this Revision Petition. In this Revision Petition, the Respondents 1,3,9 and 10 have been served with Private Notice. 8. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Petition, Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs have preferred this Revision Petition. In this Revision Petition, the Respondents 1,3,9 and 10 have been served with Private Notice. Notice sent to the Respondents 2,4 to 8 was returned unserved. Service to the Respondents held sufficient. The names of the Respondents have been printed in the Cause List. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/ Plaintiffs. 9. Assailing the Impugned Order, onbehalf of the Plaintiffs, it is submitted that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Amendment Petition as being not consequential. Drawing the attention of the Court to the averments in I.A.No.71 of 2002, it is submitted that after the Suit, the Defendants have sold the property to the proposed parties, by the Sale Deeds dated 18.05.2000, who had also put up the constructions seeking for Amendment for including the prayer for removal of construction and the same is only consequential and the District Munsif erred in dismissing the Petition as not being consequential. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs have shown their bonafide in paying the necessary Court Fee payable on the proposed Amendment. Contending that the endeavour of the Court is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the impugned order is attacked that the Trial Court ought not to have refused the proposed Amendment. 10. Whether the learned District Munsif was right in dismissing the Petition for Amendment on the ground that the proposed Amendment "Recovery of Possession, Mandatory Injunction for removal of the Construction" would alter character of the Suit, which has been filed for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. 11. The Suit was filed for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. The proposed Amendment seeking to include the prayer "for Recovery of Possession, Mandatory Injunction for removal of the Construction" might only change the nature of relief, but for more than one reason, it is to be pointed out that the proposed Amendment would substantially alter the character of the Suit. In the Counter Statement filed by R-9, it is clearly averred that out of the total extent of 6 Acres 4 Cents in Suit Survey No.584/1, the property has been sold to more than 200 persons and most of whom have put up construction. In the Counter Statement filed by R-9, it is clearly averred that out of the total extent of 6 Acres 4 Cents in Suit Survey No.584/1, the property has been sold to more than 200 persons and most of whom have put up construction. It is to be noted that the Plaintiffs have not furnished the names of all the Purchasers and have not chosen to implead all other purchasers and others who have put up constructions. Only few subsequent Purchasers viz., R-5 to R-11 have been impleaded, from whom recovery of possession and direction for removal of construction is sought for. 12. The proposed Amendment – the Plaintiffs have sought to include the Second Schedule Properties is In the proposed Amendment, Second Schedule Property sought to be included is described as under: - (i) New S.No.584/1A - East West 43' 6"; North South Eastern Side 36 feet; Western Side 30 Feet ; (ii) New S.No.584/1A – East West 43' 6"; North South Western side 38' 6"; Eastern Side 44 feet. The proposed Amendment does not state as to which the proposed party has purchased which portion and what extent and from which Defendant, it was purchased. Likewise, the nature of construction put up in the Second Schedule is neither indicated nor set forth in the proposed Amendment. Equally, the value of the proposed construction is also not indicated. The proposed Amendment is devoid of details. This is all the more so, when the proposed Amendment is sought to be made as being consequential pursuant to the order in I.A.No.71 of 2002. An Amendment should not be allowed, if it - (i) changes the nature of the case, or (ii) causes substantial prejudice to the other side. The proposed Amendment for including the Second Schedule of property and for Possession and for Mandatory Injunction directing removal of the construction would convert (i) the Suit into a different and inconsistent character; (ii) The proposed amendment would also change the defence into a different one. As noted earlier, the Suit was filed for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. Now, the Amendment has been sought for, for possession and Mandatory Injunction. The proposed Amendment not only changes the character of the Suit, but also the nature of the defence. Hence, this Court finds that the learned District Munsif was right in declining the proposed Amendment. 13. As noted earlier, the Suit was filed for Declaration and Permanent Injunction. Now, the Amendment has been sought for, for possession and Mandatory Injunction. The proposed Amendment not only changes the character of the Suit, but also the nature of the defence. Hence, this Court finds that the learned District Munsif was right in declining the proposed Amendment. 13. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs has submitted that the Plaintiffs have right to seek for the Amendment pursuant to the order made in I.A.No.71 of 2002 as being consequential. It is further submitted that when the Plaintiffs have sold the property after filing of the Suit, it has become necessary to implead the subsequent purchaser and consequentially it has also become necessary to seek for consequential prayer, which the Plaintiffs are entitled. This contention has no merits. The Amendment cannot be claimed as of right in the Suit in all circumstances. We may usefully refer to the decision reported in A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 249 wherein it has been held, "....All rules of Court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but none the less no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, not to change, by means of Amendment, the subject matter of the Suit". (Underlining added) 14. The object of Rule 17 is to allow the Amendment for the purpose of determining the real questions between the parties. The Plaintiffs are introducing totally a different case. When the Plaintiffs are so putting forth a totally different case, the cause of action would change, altering the character of the Suit. Learned District Munsif was right in finding that the proposed Amendment is not consequential; but the Plaintiffs have introduced a totally new case. The order of the District Munsif, dismissing the Petition for Amendment does not suffer from any erroneous approach warranting interference. This Revision Petition is bereft of merits and is bound to fail. 15. Learned District Munsif was right in finding that the proposed Amendment is not consequential; but the Plaintiffs have introduced a totally new case. The order of the District Munsif, dismissing the Petition for Amendment does not suffer from any erroneous approach warranting interference. This Revision Petition is bereft of merits and is bound to fail. 15. Therefore, the order dated 04.09.2002 passed in I.A.No.133 of 2002 in O.S.No.158 of 1992 by the Second Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, dismissing the Petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C seeking to amend the Plaint is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.