Judgment :- 1. The above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ambasamudhram, dated 28.10.2004, made in I.A.No.570/2004 in O.S. No. 146/2002, in any by which the learned District Munsif dismissed the Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 7, C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff who filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent herein defendant demolished the northern wall and put up anew window on that wall and further he put up a window on the western wall also. It is the claim of the petitioner that the act of the respondent in putting new windows on the walls is inconvenient to her while bathing and using the backside of the house which necessitated her to file the Petition in I.A. No. 570/2004 for amendment in the plaint seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the windows put on the northern and western side walls. The said Application was resisted by the respondent stating that the Application is belated and if the amendment as sought for by the petitioner is ordered, there is likelihood in change of cause of action. Learned District Munsif, accepting the above objections, dismissed Application, hence the present Revision. 3. Heard the learned-counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 4. It is useful to refer certain relevant averments in the plaint. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it is stated: TAMIL At the end of paragraph 5 it is stated: TAMIL 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to the above averments, particularly the reservation made in paragraph 5, submitted that on the date when the petitioner filed the Application for amendment the same was well within the prescribed time and therefore there may not be any serious objection in considering her petition for amendment. He also contended that by allowing such amendment no prejudice will be caused to the other side. In support of the above contention, he relied on the decision of this Court K. Shanmugham & two others v. S. Lakshmi Ammal, 1995 (2) CTC 461 . He also contended that by allowing such amendment no prejudice will be caused to the other side. In support of the above contention, he relied on the decision of this Court K. Shanmugham & two others v. S. Lakshmi Ammal, 1995 (2) CTC 461 . In that case, the plaintiff/respondent before the High Court has filed an Application seeking for an amendment for the relief of mandatory injunction on the ground that after the receipt of the order of interim injunction, the petitioners had constructed a septic tank in the suit property which completely obstructed the suit common passage. It is also stated that the petitioners have put up a balcony projecting the suit passage and as these constructions have been put up pending the suit, the petitioners have filed the Application for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the unauthorized construction erected over the suit property in the ground level and above the ground level and also the balcony. The lower Court has considered the amendment sought for and allowed the same on the ground that the relief sought for is based on subsequent event that took place during the pendency of the suit. A serious objection was taken contending that if the plaintiff is aggrieved due to the subsequent events, it is always open to the plaintiff to file a separate suit and she cannot be permitted to seek any relief in respect of the subsequent events by way of amendment. While rejecting the said contention, the learned Judge has held: “...........so long as the cause of action for the original suit is not changed and when the other relief is based on the subsequent events that took place during the pendency of the suit and the nature of the suit also is not changed, the amendment cannot be refused .............” After finding so, the learned Judge confirmed the order allowing the Amendment Petition and dismissed the Revision. 6. In Anthony and Another v. Arunachalapandian and another, 1996 (2) CTC 760 , it was urged before the Court that there was delay in filing the Application for amendment of the plant. Rejecting the said contention, the Hon'ble Judge has concluded that even if there is any delay, that should not stand in the way of the petitioners seeking an amendment. Rejecting the said contention, the Hon'ble Judge has concluded that even if there is any delay, that should not stand in the way of the petitioners seeking an amendment. The learned Hon'ble Judge further observed that the amendment was necessitated due to the subsequent development which had happened during the pendency of the litigation and therefore no question of coming in the way since during the pendency of the Revision there was an injunction operating against the respondents. It is further held: “...........the Courts have to take note of the events which had happened after the institution of the suit and offer relief to the parties in the changed circumstances……….” 7. As against the above propositions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, 2005 (4) CTC 762. In that decision, their Lordships have held that though Order 6, Rule 17 postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, before an amendment can be carried out, the Court is required to apply its mind on several factors including, namely, whether by reason of such amendment the claimant intents to resile from an express admission made by him. In such event, according to them, the Application for amendment may not be allowed. Their Lordships have also held that delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings would also be a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing an Application for amendment of the pleadings. Further their Lordships held that allowing such Application without application of mind on the part of the Court was held to be bad. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent also pressed into service another decision Ponnan v. Govindasamy @ Sarkarai, 2005 (4) MLJ 33, wherein the learned Judge held that when the delay in filing an amendment Application lacks bona fide, no lenient view could be taken. The other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is the decision in Chinnakkal v. Marakkal and others, 2005 (3) MLJ 577 , wherein the learned Judge held that when the plaintiff is guilty of filing repeated amendment Applications, the Court normally would not entertain such Petitions. 9. In our case, it is true that while filing the suit in the year 2002 the plaintiff has referred to fixation of two windows on the northern and western Walls. 9. In our case, it is true that while filing the suit in the year 2002 the plaintiff has referred to fixation of two windows on the northern and western Walls. It is also stated that prior to the same, there was no window in those walls and because of erection of two windows it is inconvenient for the plaintiff, since it infringes her privacy. No doubt, the plaintiff ought to, have prayed for specific relief, namely mandatory injunction for removal of those windows, while filing the suit itself. However, in the same plaint, i.e. even in the next paragraph, the plaintiff has reserved her right for removal of those two windows by way of separate proceedings. It is not in dispute that on the date when the plaintiff filed the Application for amendment of her plaint, she had time to file even the separate suit. In such circumstances, I am of the view that by permitting the plaintiff to amend her plaint for incorporation of the necessary relief, namely, mandatory injunction, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-defendant. 10. Though the above referred decisions show that the delay is also a relevant factor to be considered, filing Application for amendment at the appropriate time cannot be faulted with. In fact by filing the present Application, the plaintiff has averted another proceeding and also saved the time of the other side, namely defendant. It is not the case of any one that plaintiff is guilty of filing repeated amendment Applications for rejecting her request. Further, when it is established that there is no bona fide in filing the amendment Application, the Court need not consider the said Application by showing leniency. Further, by allowing the Application, it cannot be said that the Court is bound to grant the relief sought for, unless and until the same is established and substantiated by lacing acceptable evidence. I am satisfied that the Court below has failed to consider that by allowing the amendment, there will be no material change between the claim made in the plaint and the proposed amendment. It is also not in dispute that the Application for amendment was made before the commencement of the trial and in fact the proposed amendment will curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings. I am satisfied that the proposed amendment will serve ultimate justice and avoid further litigation. It is also not in dispute that the Application for amendment was made before the commencement of the trial and in fact the proposed amendment will curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings. I am satisfied that the proposed amendment will serve ultimate justice and avoid further litigation. The Court below has not considered all these relevant aspects and committed an error in dismissing the Application filed for amendment. 11. In the light of what is stated above, the order of the Principal District Munsif, Ambasamudhram, dated 28.10.2004, made in I.A.No.570/2004 in O.S.No.146/2002 is set aside and consequently I.A.No. 570/2004 is ordered as prayed for. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. (MD) No.2692 of 2005 is closed.