ORDER As agreed by the counsel appearing for both sides, the main Civil Revision Petition No. 154 of 2006 itself is taken up for disposal. 2. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 5.12.2005 made in I.A.No.529 of 2005 in O.S. No. 62 on the file of the District Munsif, Manaparai. 3. The Civil Revision petitioner as petitioner has filed I.A.No.529 of 2005 in O.S. No. 62 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Manaparai under Order 6 Rule 17 and also under Section 151 of the Civil procedure Code, praying to permit him to amend the plaint as set out in the petition. It has been stated in the petition that the civil revision petitioner as plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S. No. 187/90 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manaparai and the same has gone upto the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court has granted permission to the petitioner/plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. On the basis of the permission granted by the Honourable Supreme Court, the petitioner/plaintiff has instituted the suit in O.S. No. 62 of 2004. In the plaint description, due to inadvertence, the western boundary as well as north, south measurement have been wrongly given. In order to rectify the same, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition. 4. The material averments made in the counter filed by the respondents are that the present petition is barred by limitation. The petitioner/plaintiff has introduced a new clause of action and thereby changed the character of the suit. There is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the rival contentions raised by either parties, the District Munsif, Manaparai has dismissed the petition, without cost. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The only point that comes up for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is: Whether the order dated 4.12.2005 passed in LA. No. 519 of 2005 in O.S. No. 62 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Manaparai is liable to be set aside? 8. Before perpending the rival submissions made by either parties, it has become shunless to narrate the juxtaposition of the suit property as narrated in the plaint schedule. No. 519 of 2005 in O.S. No. 62 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Manaparai is liable to be set aside? 8. Before perpending the rival submissions made by either parties, it has become shunless to narrate the juxtaposition of the suit property as narrated in the plaint schedule. It is not is not an inscrutable fact that the petitioner/plaintiff has instituted the suit in O.S. No. 62 of 2004 against the respondents for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. It is stated in the description of the suit property that the suit property is comprised in Survey No. 258 in Kamatchi Ammal Koil Street, Thuvarankuruchi Village. It is also equally stated that the property of one Mohammad Bivi is situate on the western side of the suit property. On the eastern side of the suit property, seven feet north-south lane is situated. On the southern side of the suit property, the vacant sites of Mariamman Koil and Pitchai Mohammed are situate. On the northern side of the suit property, the road of Kamatchi Amman Koil is situate. 9. As stated earlier, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition merely to amend the western boundary as well as north south extent. In the petition, it has been clearly stated that the property of Marudhai Chettiar vagaiyara and north-south lane and also the property of Kattuva Rowther are situate on the western side of the suit property. Further, it is stated that the north-south measurement of the suit property is not 58 feet and it is actually 85 feet. Only to substitute the same, the present petition has been filed. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made any attempt to change the northern and southern boundaries. Therefore, it is very clear that the north-south measurement has been wrongly given as 58 feet in the plaint schedule. Since the petitioner/plaintiff has hot made any attempt to change the northern and southern boundaries, definitely, we can infer that the north-south measurement of the suit property is not 58 feet and it is only 85 feet. Further, it is an everlasting principle of law that the boundaries prevail over area. Therefore, the Court can easily discern that the plaint description in north-south measurement has been erroneously given and the same can be rectified by way of allowing the present petition. 10. Further, it is an everlasting principle of law that the boundaries prevail over area. Therefore, the Court can easily discern that the plaint description in north-south measurement has been erroneously given and the same can be rectified by way of allowing the present petition. 10. The petitioner/plaintiff has also made an attempt to correct the western boundary of the suit property. Originally, it is stated that on the western side of the suit property of one Mohammed Beevi is situate. It is stated in the petition that the western boundary has been erroneously given. Now the petitioner/plaintiff has attempted to say that the property of Marudhai Chettiar vagairah, north-south lane and property of Kattuva Rowther are situate. Further, the petitioner/plaintiff has not made any attempt to extend the east-west measurement. The actual east-west measurement of the suit property is 43 feet. Therefore, it is very clear that the western boundary of the suit property has been erroneously given in the plaint and the same can also be rectified by way of allowing the present petition. Further, the petitioner/plaintiff has not introduced any new relief. Therefore, by way of allowing the present petition, the character of the suit as well as the cause of action will not be changed. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the civil revision petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition only for the purpose of permitting him to make amendments mentioned in the petition and the proposed amendments will not change the character of the suit and the petitioner/plaintiff has not sought for any new relief but the Court below has dismissed the petition erroneously on the ground of limitation. Under the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 12. In order to encrust the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the following decisions. 13. The first and foremost decision is Pankaja and another v. Yellappa (dead) by LRs and others 2004 (6) SCC 415 , wherein at paras 14 and 17, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: - “There is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment is discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no strait-jacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual background of that case.” 14. The second decision is Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others AIR 2001 SC 699 : 2001 (2) SCC 472 , wherein, the Honourable Apex Court has held that: “Where it is arguable that relief sought by way of amendment would be barred by law of limitation, held, amendment should still be allowed and the disputed matter made the subject-matter of an issue.” 15. The third decision is Vaijanthi, through her Power of Attorney Agent Chokkanathan v. Raghuram @ Bharathi (2001) 2 MLJ 387: 2001 (3) CTC 662 , wherein it has been held that: “Description of property should conform to actual existence even if it is not so described in document. Errors may be in document itself. Such amendment will not introduce new cause of action and will not cause prejudice to other side.” 16. The fourth decision is S. Muthuraman (died) and 2 others v. Dharmaraja and 11 others (1999) 1 MLJ 604 : 1999 (2) CTC 250 , wherein it has been held that: “Application for amendment in plaint schedule property specifying more details as to the schedule, survey number and extent apart from including additional items in suit property. Such amendment does not result in fresh cause of action but avoids multiplicity of litigation. Application for amendment deserves to be ordered.” 17. The fifth decision is Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2002-2-L.W. 24, wherein the Apex Court has held that: “mere delay in making amendment application is not itself to refuse amendment.” 18. From the conjoint reading of the decisions explicated earlier, it is very clear that an amendment petition which does not introduce a new cause of action, new reliefs can easily be allowed. Further, it is also easily discernible that a mere delay in filing an amendment petition is not a ground to reject the same. From the conjoint reading of the decisions explicated earlier, it is very clear that an amendment petition which does not introduce a new cause of action, new reliefs can easily be allowed. Further, it is also easily discernible that a mere delay in filing an amendment petition is not a ground to reject the same. In the instant case as expounded earlier, the petitioner/plaintiff wants to change the western boundary as well as north-south measurement of the suit property. It is not an exaggeration to say that the petitioner/plaintiff has erroneously mentioned the western boundary as well as north-south measurement. In fact the proposed amendment will not introduce any new cause of action and further, the petitioner /plaintiff has not sought for any new relief and under such circumstances, the question of limitation does not arise. The Court below has mainly dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has sought for new relief and the same are barred by limitation. In the light of the foregoing narration of both factual and legal premise, it is pellucid that the reason given by the Court below for the dismissal of the petition is totally erroneous and the impugned order passed by the Court below is totally illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 19. In order to remonstrate the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the civil revision petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the civil revision respondents has contended that the petitioner has made a faint attempt to introduce a new cause of action as well as new reliefs and the same are not permitted under law and on the said circumstances, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the relief sought for in the petition is barred by limitation and ultimately, dismissed the petition. 20. In order to buttress the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the civil revision respondents, he has made so many inert attempts by way of bringing the attention of the Court to the following decisions. 21. 20. In order to buttress the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the civil revision respondents, he has made so many inert attempts by way of bringing the attention of the Court to the following decisions. 21. The first and foremost decision relied upon by the counsel for the civil revision respondents is reported in R. Mohanasundaram and Another v. Sri Anjaneya Sri Ragavendra Temple and Others 2002 (3) CLJ 22, wherein, it has been held that: “Mere amending of old survey number into new survey number and the modification of S.F. number to G.S. Number may not create fresh cause of action. But, adding the extent of the area would give rise to fresh or additional relief by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for consideration of the application afresh”. 22. The second decision is A. Palani and Another v. (1) Jayarama Konar (2) Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thiruvannainallur (3) Thangavel and (4) Ramachandran (2001) 3 MLJ 482 wherein, it has been held that: “Application to amend plaint seeking prayer for recovery of possession instead of permanent injunction, is not permissible.” 23. The third decision is Purushothaman v. Head Master & Correspondent Sacred Heart High School, Anilady, Ginjee Taluk 2001-2L.W. 608, wherein it has been held that: “Originally the suit has been instituted for the relief of permanent injunction and subsequently, the amendment petition has been filed shows to introduce the new relief of declaration and such amendment is not permissible.” 24. The fourth decision is Narayana Reddiar v. Alagammal 1997-3-L.W. 608, wherein it has been held that “introducing new cause of action by amending the plaint cannot be allowed.” 25. The fifth decision is T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd v. T. N. Electricity Board and others 2004 (2) CTC 637 wherein, it has been held that: “the Court must consider the new relief sought for would be barred by limitation on the date of amendment application.” 26. The last decision in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (D) by Lrs and others 2005 (4) CTC 762 wherein, the Honourable Apex Court in paragraph 146 has held as follows: “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.” 27. From the cumulative effect of the reading of the decisions referred to supra, it is easily discerned that an amendment application should not introduce a new cause of action and also new reliefs. In the instant case, as pointed out in many places, the petitioner/plaintiff has not made any attempt to introduce a new cause of action as well as new reliefs. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made any attempt to change the southern and northern boundaries mentioned in the schedule. Further he has not made any attempt to change the east-west measurement. The amendments sought for are flimsy in nature. In fact, both the western boundary as well as north-south measurement have been erroneously given in the plaint schedule and those mistakes can be rectified by allowing the present petition. By way of allowing the present petition, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and further in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court must allow the present petition. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing narration at factual aspects, it is needless to say that the decisions referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the civil revision respondents cannot be attuned to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 28. As pointed out earlier, the Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. It has already been stated that no new reliefs have been sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff and under the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Court below is totally erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 29. In fine, the above Civil Revision petition is allowed and the order dated 5.12.2005 passed in I.A. No. 529 of 2005 in O.S. No. 62 of 2004 by the learned District Munsif, Manaparai is set aside. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.