Judgment :- Inveighing the order dated 112. 2008, passed by the learned District Munsif Court of Mettupalayam, in I.A.No.763 of 2006 in O.S.No.142 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The long and short of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.142 of 2004 seeking the following reliefs: "(a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property set out in the schedule hereunder and direct the defendants and their men agents or any person claiming through or under them to deliver vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff; .(b) Directing the defendants 1 to 3 to render a true and proper account for all the income from the suit property from the date of suit and pay the same to the plaintiff till date of delivery of possession; .(c) Directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit; and .(d) grant such other or further reliefs as the court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." .(ii) During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.763 of 2006 was filed by the first respondent seeking amendment of the plaint; the same was allowed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the lower Court, this revision has been focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 3, 10, 12 to 14 placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the suit has been pending for about 16 years and after a decade and a half, the I.A.No.763 of 2006 was filed seeking amendment which was totally untenable; however, the lower Court simply allowed it on cost of Rs.1,000/- payable by the plaintiffs in favour of the contesting defendants; the amendment allowed is in the nature of changing the suit schedule property and such an amendment is not contemplated under law. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would contend that trial has not yet been commenced, there was change of counsel, whereupon the new counsel after going through the plaint came to understand that there are errors in the plaint prepared by the earlier counsel, whereupon only I.A.No.763 of 2006 was came to be filed. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would contend that trial has not yet been commenced, there was change of counsel, whereupon the new counsel after going through the plaint came to understand that there are errors in the plaint prepared by the earlier counsel, whereupon only I.A.No.763 of 2006 was came to be filed. The cause of action is not changed by the proposed amendment and for the purpose of comprehensively deciding the lis only such amendment was sought; under three sale deeds as revealed by the averments in paragraph 11 of the plaint the suit property was purchased; instead of clearly setting out the details of the property in the schedule of the original plaint, in a clumsy way the property was described, which alone warranted the new counsel for the plaintiff to file such an application and the lower Court correctly understood the ramification of the proposed amendment and allowed it and that too on cost, which warrants no interference. 6. In this factual matrix, a bare perusal of the proposed amendment would display and demonstrate that even though in paragraph 11 of the plaint three sale deeds were found specified, the date of the sale deeds were not correctly mentioned and hence the plaintiff wanted to get the date also corrected. It is not as though those registered documents are concocted ones for the purpose of getting the plaint amended. Absolutely there is no reason to look askance at such genuine prayers made by the plaintiffs for the purpose of getting errors corrected; in commensurate with the averments in the plaint. The plaint schedule should have been typed; virtually incorporating the schedules as found in the sale deeds, but in the original plaint, only one schedule was typed and that too specifying a wrong extent which also is sought to be changed by the present amendment. Hence, in this factual matrix, I am of the view that there is genuineness in the prayers made for rectifications and in no way they would affect nature of the suit. Simply by allowing these amendments, the Court is not in any way holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs and it is for the plaintiffs to prove their case during trial and obtain a judgment on merits. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that even the cost awarded was also meagre. Simply by allowing these amendments, the Court is not in any way holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs and it is for the plaintiffs to prove their case during trial and obtain a judgment on merits. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that even the cost awarded was also meagre. Taking into account the long delay, I would like to enhance the cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) by five hundred more, thereby increasing the cost to Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) in total in favour of each of the contesting defendants, namely the revision petitioners herein. The additional cost shall be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The learned counsel prays for the early disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit O.S.No.142 of 2004 itself within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.