Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who was the respondent in I.A.No,1208 of 2004 in O.S.No.711 of 2001 before the lower court against the order passed on 08.10.2004 in allowing the said application by the said court. 2. Heard Mr. N. Manokaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Mukunth, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the lower court had erroneously allowed the amendment which would introduce a new cause of action. He would also submit in his argument that the amendment sought for by the respondent/plaintiff was in respect of the 2nd item, only after a longer delay that too at the fag end of the trial when the case has been ripen for argument. He would also submit in his argument that the allowing of amendment would change the nature of the suit and the right of the defence would substantially be prejudiced. He would further submit that the relief of amendment has been discouraged after the commencement of the trial as in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which has not been followed by the lower court and it did not consider the said provisions in its order. 4. He would further submit that the present claim by the way of amendment is also barred by law of limitation and therefore, the amendment should not have been ordered. He would again submit in his argument that the respondent/plaintiff had already sought for the amendment of the plaint in I.A.No.1604 of 2001 and the same was allowed and the 2nd schedule of the suit property was ordered to have been included in the plaint and even in the amendment application the respondent had not come forward with a correction of Survey number in the suit property and also the amendment for deleting the words "except under due process of law" and therefore, the respondent is estopped from asking such amendment of the plaint. He would further submit in his argument that the respondent/plaintiff under the guise of amendment want to change the entire scope and character of the suit. He would further submit in his argument that the respondent/plaintiff under the guise of amendment want to change the entire scope and character of the suit. He would also submit in his argument that the property situated in S.F.No.658 and property situated in 660/2 are different properties and the respondent/plaintiff is confusing the very identity of the property and the lower court ought to have rejected the amendment but it had erroneously ordered the amendment. He would insist in his argument that the ingredients of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are mandatory and for that proposition of law, he would cite a judgment of Honble Apex court reported in 2009 (2) SCC 409 in between Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another. He would also bring it to the notice of this court yet another judgment of Honble Apex court reported in 2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 460 in between Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others in order to show that the duties of the court to allow such amendment should be on the determination of real question in controversy and such discretion should have been exercised after considering the potentiality of prejduice or injustice likely to have caused to the other side. He would further submit in his argument that the lower court has not considered the amendment provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and in such circumstances as per the judgment of this court reported in 2007 1 L.W. 526 in between Ruby Esther Mary vs. Dominic Xavier @ Thomuni, such orders are not sustainable. He would therefore request the court to interfere with the orders passed by the lower court and set aside the permission granted to the respondent/plaintiff for amending the plaint regarding the 2nd item after the commencement of trial. For that he would also request the court allow the revision as sought for. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit in his argument that the lower court had considered the circumstances of the case and had allowed the amendment as sought for. For that he would also request the court allow the revision as sought for. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit in his argument that the lower court had considered the circumstances of the case and had allowed the amendment as sought for. He would further submit that the amendment application was filed only after the trial had commenced and it has also been properly explained to the lower court that the plaintiff was inspite of due diligence he could not have raised the said amendment before the commencement of trial, since he came to know about the actual survey number through the evidence of P.W.3 only and therefore, the amendment sought for regarding S.F.No.658 as 660/2 was accepted. He would further submit that the words "except under due process of law" sought to have been amended will not in anyway alter the meaning of the prayer. However, these words are not necessary for granting relief of permanent injunction. He would also submit the reasons adduced by the respondent/plaintiff was sufficient to attract the proviso under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and therefore, the lower court had come to the conclusion of allowing the amendment. 6. He would further submit that the lower court had applied its mind to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and had permitted the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint and there is no violation of law in ordering. He would also submit that the lower court had discussed everything and had come to a conclusion that the amendment should have been allowed and in such circumstances, this court cannot interfere with the order passed by the lower court as perverse or arbitrary or without jurisdiction. For that he would rely upon a judgment of Honble Apex court reported in 2008 (2) CTC 224 in between Puran Ram vs. Bhaguram and another. He would also submit that the mere mistake in referring to the S.F.No. 658 instead of 660/2 will not in anyway affect the case of the respondent/plaintiff and however, the correct survey number was known to the respondent/plaintiff only during the time of trial and therefore, it has become necessary for the respondent/plaintiff to seek for amendment of the survey number from 658 to 660/2 and the said amendment will not in anyway change the identity of the said property as four boundaries have been already described in the suit schedule. He would further submit in his argument that the description of the suit property item 1 was described by boundaries and item 2 has been mentioned as per the amendment of the plaint order earlier. In the aforesaid circumstances, the identity of the property cannot be changed. Moreover, the properties amended in respect of title deed with reference to item 2 of the property should also been mentioned, unless the court cannot pass an effective judgment in respect of the disputes in between parties. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been promptly applied with and the lower court has also exercised its discretion after very much applying to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permitting the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint as sought for. He would further request the court that the order passed by the lower court in permitting the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint was based upon sound principles and with abundant jurisdiction and therefore, the order allowing the amendment may not be interfered and set aside. Therefore, he would request the court to dismiss the revision petition. 8. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 9. The admitted facts are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner in respect of the suit property for permanent injunction and for costs. Admittedly the plaint was already amended at the initiation of the plaintiff and the 2nd item of the suit property was ordered to have included in the schedule of properties. After the said amendment, necessary objections were also raised and after framing of issues the trial also commenced. After the commencement of the trial the present application for amendment was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the lower court seeking for amendment of the survey number in the suit property and also to delete the words "except under due process of law" with a reason that it would enable the court to pass a conclusive judgment. The proposed amendment as sought for by the respondent/plaintiff would be regarding the particulars in another sale deed dated 18.09.1969 which covers the suit property. The proposed amendment as sought for by the respondent/plaintiff would be regarding the particulars in another sale deed dated 18.09.1969 which covers the suit property. The consequent amendment was regarding the mistake committed in the sale deed dated 18.09.1969 as to its survey number and another amendment was to delete the words "except due process of law" in the prayer and to substitute S.No.660/2 wherever S.No.658 has been mentioned in the plaint. The undisputed facts are that the respondent/plaintiff had already filed an amendment application prior to the commencement of trial and had amended the plaint as per the order of the lower court passed there on. The main contention of the petitioner was to the effect that the present amendment could have been mentioned in the earlier application itself and the amendment could have been ordered then itself. According to the affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, along with the amendment application. He has come to know about the correct survey number of property as S.F.No.660/2 and the reference as to S.F.No.658 was a sheer mistake only during the course of P.W.3s evidence. Therefore, the non mentioning of a different survey number in the suit property in the earlier application cannot be a bar for claiming the amendment at present. The judgment of Honble Apex court reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409 in between VidyaBai and others vs. Padmalatha and another would run as follows: "19. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The courts jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint." As per the aforesaid judgment the court would have got jurisdiction to allow the amendment provided the amendment sought for is necessary to decide the real dispute in between parties. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint." As per the aforesaid judgment the court would have got jurisdiction to allow the amendment provided the amendment sought for is necessary to decide the real dispute in between parties. As far as the amendment of the survey number as S.F.No.660/2 instead of 658 is concerned the mere reference to survey number will not change the identity of the property since four boundaries were already given in item 1 of the suit property. There is no dispute that both the properties are adjacently located to form 10 ½ cents as a whole suit property. In the aforesaid circumstances, mere change in survey number will not alter or misidentify the suit property. When such is the position the person who derived title to the suit property should have been given an opportunity by putting forth the sale deed under which the respondent/plaintiff has got title. These amendments even though it has raised after the commencement of trial, it could have been accepted because these correct facts are necessary for the settlement of disputes in between parties once for all. Therefore, the lower court has got every jurisdiction to pass an order of amendment. 10. However, it has been further contended that the amendment sought to be entrusted now is not bonafide and therefore serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners. For that purpose the judgment of Honble Apex court reported in 2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 460 in between Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons and others has been cited. The relevant passage would run as follows: "24......The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute the cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. According to the said judgment substituting of cause of action so as to alter the case materially cannot be allowed. According to the said judgment substituting of cause of action so as to alter the case materially cannot be allowed. As far as this case is concerned the proposed amendment sought for, are in respect of derivative title of the suit property which are explanatory to the earlier cause of action and the correction of survey number in respect of the suit property from S.F.No.658 to S.F.No.660/2. It has already been discussed that the boundaries mentioned in the suit property described in the schedule will not be changed by merely amending the survey number and therefore there is no question of substituting new case or property. 11. In the said circumstances, the judgment of Honble Apex court reported in 2008 (2) CTC 224 in between Puran Ram vs. Bhaguram and another would be helpful for disposal of the point at issue. The relevant passage is laid down in para 14 of the judgment. "14. We may now take into consideration as to whether the High Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, which, in the discretion of the trial court, was allowed. We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the trial court when the order of the trial court was passed on sound consideration of law and facts and when it cannot be said that the order of the trial court was either without jurisdiction or perverse or arbitrary. According to the said dictum laid down the revisional court sitting under Article 227 ought not to have interfered with the order of the trial court when the order passed by lower court on sound consideration of law and facts. On a cursory perusal of the lower courts order it would go to show that the lower court took much pain to see the proposed amendment is necessary even after the trial commenced which would enable the lower court to come to a correct conclusion. Therefore, this court has no reason to interfere with the said order passed by the lower court. 11. Apart from that the petitioner is not remediless after carrying out the amendment permitted by the lower court. The petitioner/plaintiff will be given an opportunity to meet out the proposed amendment by way of filing additional written statement. Therefore, this court has no reason to interfere with the said order passed by the lower court. 11. Apart from that the petitioner is not remediless after carrying out the amendment permitted by the lower court. The petitioner/plaintiff will be given an opportunity to meet out the proposed amendment by way of filing additional written statement. Thereafter additional issues if any shall be framed by the lower court (trial) and further evidence can also be adduced on that aspect and a judgment considering the amendment and the evidence there on could have been passed by the lower court. Therefore, this court has no iota of reason to interfere with the orders permitting the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint. Therefore the revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. For the reasons mentioned above the order passed by the lower court is sustained and the revision filed by the petitioner/defendant is dismissed with costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.