ORDER The appellants in the first appeal in A. S. No. 4/2004 are the revision petitioners herein. The revision petition is filed against the order of the first Appellate Court passed in I.A. No. 18/2005 in A.S. No. 4/2004 on 30.9.2005. The respondents 1 to 5 have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners herein who are defendants 4,5,7,8 and 9 and also other defendants restraining them from interfering with their rights and privileges in the suit temple and also to perform certain festival. 2. The petitioners herein who were subsequently impleaded as defendants 4,5,7,8 and 9 in the suit have filed the petitions to implead them under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and as per the order in I.A. No. 499 of 1999 in O.S. No. 191 of 1991 dated 6.7.2000 they were impleaded as representing the village and people living in Thoppur Village as their representatives. The said suit was decreed as against which the defendants 4,5,7,8 and 9 have filed appeal in A.S. No. 4/2004 before the Sub-Court, Aruppukottai in their individual names. Thereafter, in February 2005 the petitioners filed I.A. No. 18/2005 in A.S.No.4/2004 under Order 6 Rule 7 of C.P.C to permit the petitioners to amend the appeal short cause title by describing them as for themselves and as well as the representatives of Thoppur Village. It was that application filed under Order 6 Rule 7 of C. P. C which was dismissed against which the present revision petition is filed. 3. Mr. Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while admittedly, the petitioners were impleaded in the suit filed by the respondents for declaration and injunction as representatives of the Thoppur Village people and the same has been finally decided in this Court in C.R.P. No. 1746 and 1747/2001 dated 6.11.2001, nonmentioning of the names of the petitioners as appellants in the grounds of appeal as representing the people of Thoppur Village is only a technical error and therefore, in the interest of justice, it should have been allowed by the Appellate Court. The dismissal of the said application by the first appellate Court is illegal and against the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. On the other hand, Mr. The dismissal of the said application by the first appellate Court is illegal and against the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. On the other hand, Mr. T.V. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the allegations of non-mentioning of the petitioners names in the appeal as for themselves and representing the people of Thoppur Village can never be taken as a mistake. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have consciously filed interlocutory application before the Trial Court for impleading them for themselves and on behalf of the villagers and after the suit was decreed when they have filed the appeal they had two status of filing of appeal either for themselves or themselves along with the village people as their representatives. They have consciously filed the appeal only on their behalf and therefore, they have given up their right of representing the villagers. Their right by way of amendment to represent, the village after a long lapse of time and after the period of limitation is over for the purpose of filing appeal for and on behalf of the village. Allowing such application for amendment will be not only against the provisions of the Limitation Act but also such an order cannot be passed by way of an amendment. Even assuming that the petitioners have filed the appeal in their names, the only way open to them is to file another application seeking permission from the first Appellate Court to represent in the appeal on the behalf of the villagers. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the order of the Trial Court is perfectly in order. 5. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Tamil Nadu Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others 2004-3-LW 732 and submit that the Courts must take into consideration as to whether a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation before allowing an application for amendment. 6. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others 2004-3-LW 732 and submit that the Courts must take into consideration as to whether a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation before allowing an application for amendment. 6. A reference to the impugned order of the first Appellate Court shows that in fact the Court below has taken into consideration that the petitioner filed for the purpose of amendment is not for amending the pleadings but it is for the purpose of changing the status of the appellants and that the appellants have got a right to appeal as individual persons and also as persons representing the village and therefore, having taken a conscious decision to file the appeal in the individual capacity, a change sought to be effected for the purpose of representing the public and that will alter the entire situation and in view of the same the petition for amendment was dismissed. 7. The Court below has also taken into consideration that even the vakalat filed in the first appeal, the petitioners have only signed in their individual capacity and not representing the public at large and on that basis, the Court has come to the conclusion that it is the conscious decision taken by the petitioners to file the appeal in their individual capacity and that cannot be corrected by way of an amendment so as to give them different status altogether. Taking into that consideration, the Court below has rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 7 of C.P.C for amendment of grounds of appeal. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear the petitioners herein have filed the applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. before the Trial Court for a permission to defend the case for and on behalf of the people of Thoppur Village that was taken upto this Court and ultimately this Court in the Revision in C.R.P. Nos. 1746 and 1747 of 2001 dated 6.11.2001 has also held that permitting them to represent the villagers by impleading them in the suit. It is also the fact that ultimately the suit has been decreed. 1746 and 1747 of 2001 dated 6.11.2001 has also held that permitting them to represent the villagers by impleading them in the suit. It is also the fact that ultimately the suit has been decreed. It is relevant to point out that while the case of the plaintiffs was that they are exclusively entitled for certain temple honours and right to conduct festivals, the impleaded parties who are the revision petitioners were permitted to represent the entire Thoppur Village on the pleading that the entire villagers by constituting committees are entitled to perform the festivals. Therefore, the claims of the revision petitioners are not in their individual rights but the collective rights of villagers. Therefore, the petitioners had no right of filing of appeal in their individual capacity since their claim has been in the capacity of representatives of the villagers of the Thoppur Village. In fact, even in the revision petitions which has been decided by this Court, this Court while holding that there has already been collusion between the existing defendants, the impleading of the present petitioners representing the village was held to become a necessity. In view of the same, the petitioners impleading on behalf of the village in the suit has been held finally by this Court. Therefore, it is clear that the impleading of the petitioners originally in the suit was only in their capacity as villagers and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners where having personal claims in respect of the poojas in the temple in issue. 9. In view of the above said fact, it cannot be said that the petitioners have any individual right to file appeal. If at all they have filed any appeal even in their individual capacity, it should be taken in the capacity of representing the villagers. Merely, because it is not mentioned that they are representing the villagers, cannot deprive the petitioners to continue to represent the villagers inasmuch as they have not claimed any personal rights in their favour. 10. If at all they have filed any appeal even in their individual capacity, it should be taken in the capacity of representing the villagers. Merely, because it is not mentioned that they are representing the villagers, cannot deprive the petitioners to continue to represent the villagers inasmuch as they have not claimed any personal rights in their favour. 10. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the respondents on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Tamil Nadu Alloy Foundry Co., Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if a fresh suit on the amended claim will be barred by limitation an application for amendment cannot be granted is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In cases relating to a suit for damages or money when one figure has been given at the initial stage and subsequently sought to be increased, an amendment for the purpose of increase cannot be permitted, for, such an enhanced claim independently will be barred by limitation and what cannot be done directly shall not be done indirectly by way of amendment. The reference to the above said judgment of the Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has placed reliance on the earlier judgment rendered in L. J. Leach and Co., Ltd. and Another v.Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR 1957 SC 357 directing the Courts to take into consideration the factor of limitation before ordering the amendment has laid down the law as follows: ""The law as regards permitting amendment to the plaintiff is well settled, in L. J. Leach and Co., Ltd. and Another v. Jardine Skinner and Co. AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 435, it was held that the Court as a rule will decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the Court to order it"". But in the present case, as I have stated earlier, it cannot be said that the petitioners were having individual right considering the relief sought for in the plaint and therefore, the question of limitation does not arise. 12. But in the present case, as I have stated earlier, it cannot be said that the petitioners were having individual right considering the relief sought for in the plaint and therefore, the question of limitation does not arise. 12. It is relevant to point out that, the relief in the plaint filed by the respondents is for a declaration and injunction that they are exclusively entitled for the maintenance of temple offering of poojas and also certain privileges. Since the case of the villagers is that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the exclusive privileges and the temples belongs to the village and on that basis, the impleading was permitted to the petitioners to represent the village. Therefore, it can never be said as if the petitioners have got their individual right as also the right on behalf of the villagers and in that regard the finding of the Court below is not correct. 13. Therefore, in such circumstances, the question of filing of another appeal by the petitioners representing the village and applicability of the period of limitation does not arise. The petitioners right was only to file appeal as representatives of the village and not their individual capacity and therefore, in my considered view, it is not necessary that once again they should file an application before the Appellate Court for the purpose of permission to continue to prosecute the appeal for and on behalf of the people of Thoppur Village. While it is true that the Appellate Court can always decide the appeal on the merit of the case and that cannot prevent the petitioners from continuing to represent in the appeal therefore, it should be presumed that the appeal filed by the petitioners in the first Appellate Court against the decree and judgment of the Trial Court can only be in the capacity of representing the villagers and not their individual capacity. 14. In view of the same, I am of the considered view that the petitions for amendment does not involve any question relating to limitation. Since, the petitioners have already filed the appeal and what is required is to permit them to continue to represent on behalf of the people of Thoppur Village since they have no individual capacity, the amendment has to be ordered only as a necessary consequence. 15. Since, the petitioners have already filed the appeal and what is required is to permit them to continue to represent on behalf of the people of Thoppur Village since they have no individual capacity, the amendment has to be ordered only as a necessary consequence. 15. In view of the same, the impugned order of the Court below in rejecting the application for amendment is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also closed.