Judgment :- The revision petitioners/defendants have filed this present revision petition as against the order dated 16.06.2008 in I.A.No.852 of 2007 in O.S.No.539 of 2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in allowing the application for amendment of plaint filed by the first respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.852 of 2007, has inter alia observed that the said application will be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.100/- each to respondents 1 to 4 therein to be paid before 20.06.2008, failing which the petition will stand dismissed and posted the case to 20.06.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ defendants 1 and 3 submits that the order passed by the trial Court in allowing the interlocutory application for amendment of plaint is contrary to law and facts and that the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that the suit is barred based on the principles of res judicata, since the Honble High Court has already dealt with the issue in A.S.No.887 of 1990 and therefore, the same is binding on the first respondent/plaintiff and further that the trial Court has not appreciated the another fact that by allowing the proposed amendment, the cause of action of the entire suit will get changed and therefore, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the application in the interest of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff contends that the trial Court has rightly allowed the amendment application and in the amendment application, the first respondent/plaintiff has only sought a relief of alternative basis and therefore, the same will not in any way change the nature and character of the suit already framed and further at the time of amendment application when the Court deals with the same generally the merits and demerits of the matter will not be gone into by a Court of law and therefore, prays for dismissing the revision petition. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relies on Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 which says that no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property etc. Further, on the side of revision petitioners reliance is placed to Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 which deals with prohibition of benami transactions and the same is as follows: "(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to - .(a) the purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for the benefit of the wife or the unmarried daughter; .(b) the securities held by a - .(i) depository as registered owner under sub-section(1) of Section 10 of the Depositories Act, 1996 .(ii) participant as an agent of a depository. Explanation.-The expressions "depository" and "participants" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Depositories Act, 1996." 6. The pith and substance of the contention of the revision petitioners is that when a plea which cannot be taken when there is a bar under a particular Act then such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised by a party by means of projecting an amendment application and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition. 7. Admittedly, the first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for partition praying for a judgment and decree directing the defendants 1 to 3 to divide the item No.1 and 2 of the schedule mentioned property into 4 equal shares and allot one such share of the plaintiff etc. At this stage, the learned counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff brings it to the notice of this Court that in the Plaint at para 4, the first respondent/plaintiff has specifically averred that this previous suit was for partition, accounts for mense profits. In that suit, this suit property was not a subject matter for partition. At this stage, the learned counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff brings it to the notice of this Court that in the Plaint at para 4, the first respondent/plaintiff has specifically averred that this previous suit was for partition, accounts for mense profits. In that suit, this suit property was not a subject matter for partition. The subject matter for partition in the previous suit relates to only the property acquired by Meenakshi Sundaram in the year 1951 and various other movable assets such as company shares, fixed deposits etc. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners informs this Court that in the proof affidavit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court in para 5, he has specifically averred that in O.S.No.623 of 1985 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in regard to the present schedule of property, it has not been decided in detail etc. and further that in para 7 he has also stated that the appeal judgment is Ex.A.5 dated 2. 2006 passed by the Honble High Court, Madras. 9. On a careful consideration of respective contentions, this Court is of the considered view that a Court of law while dealing with an amendment application must deal with the same liberally and it is an axiomatic fact that at the time of allowing the amendment application, a Court of law is not suppose to go into the merits and demerits of the claim and in any event, on a perusal of the amendment sought for by the first respondent /plaintiff in the application, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the said amendment will not in any way change the character of the suit in any manner and in that view of the matter, the view taken by the trial Court in allowing the application I.A.No.852 of 2007 is perfectly valid in law and resultantly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. 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.852 of 2007 is confirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. 10. 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.852 of 2007 is confirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. It is open to the parties to raise such factual and legal pleas which are open to them before the trial Court in the manner known to law and it is brought to the notice of the Court that the main suit is posted for arguments and hence, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.