Judgment :- The civil revision petitioner/defendant has projected the civil revision petition as against the order dated 8. 2006 in I.A.No.340 of 2004 in O.S.No.289 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Villupuram in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 praying for an amendment of written statement. 2. The trial Court, while disposing of the I.A.No.340 of 2004, has inter alia opined that at the time of passing a decree the Court can mould the relief within its powers and further that A.S.No.219 of 2003 is pending before the District Court, Villupuram and resultantly, rejected the application. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court should have seen that the amendment of the written statement is absolutely necessary in view of the subsequent event of delivery of property is not maintainable and further that on the basis of exparte decree, the respondent having taken possession in execution of the same and the restitution having been dismissed, the amendment application should have been allowed and moreover, A.S.No.219 of 2003 has been dismissed and the subsequent events are material which goes to the root of the matter ought to have been allowed to be raised in the pleadings and resultantly, the trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment application and by ordering the amendment no prejudice will be caused to the other side and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition. 4. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the amendment application has to be allowed by a Court of law liberally and in support of his contention, he relies on the decision of this Court in Damayanthi Kailasam V. Mrs. D.F. Philips and others ( 2007 (2) CTC 813 ) wherein it is inter alia observed that Courts should be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side and that inconsistent pleas can be raised by defendant by seeking amendment to written statement and discretion exercised by the trial Court, held, proper. He also presses into service the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh V. Manohar Singh reported in (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2832), wherein it is observed that application for amendment was in fact an elaboration of defence case and not withdrawal of earlier admission and amendment incorporating an alternative plea of ownership can be allowed. 5. It is to be borne in mind that the power of the Court to mould the relief other than the one prayed for in the plaint is within the domain of a Court. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has given details of amendment in I.A.No.340 of 2004. 6. On going through the details of amendment mentioned in the IA, this Court is of the view that in regard to the details of amendment sought for, the same can be projected through evidence of witnesses on the side of revision petitioner/defendant and in that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that no separate/ an independent application I.A.No.340 of 2004 is very much required based on the facts and circumstances of the case which floats on the surface and viewed in this perspective, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed to promote substantial cause of justice. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.340 of 2004 is confirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. Liberty is given to the revision petitioner/ defendant to let in evidence through witnesses before the trial Court in regard to the details sought for by way of amendment in the interlocutory application in I.A.No.340 of 2004 and the same is subjected to cross examination by the other side in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.