Judgment :- This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 22.1.2010, made in I.A.No.14378 of 2009, in O.S.No.8413 of 2008, on the file of the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The petitioner in the present civil revision petition is the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.8413 of 2008. The said suit had been filed to declare the election of the first defendant Association, conducted on 13.9.2008, as null and void and for a mandatory injunction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a fresh election for the first defendant Association and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and others from acting in their respective posts, as bearers of the first defendant Association, on the basis of the election held, on 13.9.2008. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that the claim of the defendants in the suit, who are the respondents in the present civil revision petition, that the petitioner has been removed from the membership of the first defendant Association, on 3.12.2000, and therefore, the suit filed by the petitioner cannot be sustained is erroneous and contrary to law, since no notice had been issued to the petitioner before he had been removed from the membership of the said Association. He had also submitted that, unless the reliefs sought for in the suit, in O.S.No.8413 of 2008, is permitted to be amended, the suit would become infructuous. 4. The learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in his order, dated 22.1.2010, had rejected the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.14378 of 2009, filed by the petitioner, on the ground that the application had been filed belatedly, after the commencement of the trial in the suit. It had also been stated that the petitioner had not filed any document to show that the subscriptions for the membership of the Association had been prayed by the petitioner, between the years 2001 and 2008. The trial Court had also stated that since, the amendment would change the entire nature of the suit, the request of the petitioner, in I.A.No.14378 of 2009, cannot be granted. 5. The trial Court had also stated that since, the amendment would change the entire nature of the suit, the request of the petitioner, in I.A.No.14378 of 2009, cannot be granted. 5. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order, dated 22.1.2010, made in I.A.No.14378 of 2009, in O.S.No.8413 of 2008. 6. The reasons stated by the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, cannot be said to be erroneous. The request of the petitioner to amend the prayer in the suit, if allowed, would change the entire nature of the suit in O.S.No.8413 of 2008, which had been filed in the year, 2008. As the trial in the suit had commenced, the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, had rightly rejected the request of the petitioner, to amend the prayer in the suit. For the reasons stated above, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.