Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 3.9.2009, made in I.A.No.698 of 2009, in O.S.No.390 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur. 2. The plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.390 of 2004, had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.698 of 2009, for amending the plaint, as the original survey number of the suit property, which was 901/2 had been sub-divided and it had been given a new survey number, as 901/3. The plaintiffs had come to know about the change in the survey number when the advocate commissioner, who had been appointed by the trial court, had filed a report in respect of the property in dispute. Therefore, the petitioners herein had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.698 of 2009, for the amendment of the plaint. 3. The trial Court, by its impugned order, dated 3.9.2009, had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners, without properly appreciating the merits of the case. In such circumstances, the present civil revision petition has been filed, challenging the order, dated 3.9.2009, passed by the trial Court, in I.A.No.698 of 2009, in O.S.No.390 of 2004. 4. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had stated that the petitioners had filed a suit, in O.S.No.390 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur, for declaration of their possessory rights and for a permanent injunction against the respondents. The claim of the petitioners that they had no knowledge of the sub-division made by the revenue authorities, in survey number 901/2, is false. The claim of the petitioners that the authorities of the revenue department had prevented the petitioners from surveying the land is also false. 5. It had been further stated that the advocate commissioner, appointed by the trial Court, had visited the suit property, on 1.8.2009, and he had filed a report before the trial Court, along with the plan. The petitioners are not entitled to prove their case based on the commissioners report. Their claims have to be proved, independently, by way of oral, as well as documentary evidence. Since, the amendment, sought for by the petitioners, would change the nature of the suit, the amendment, as prayed for by the petitioners, cannot be permitted. Further, the relief prayed for by the petitioners is barred by limitation. 6. Their claims have to be proved, independently, by way of oral, as well as documentary evidence. Since, the amendment, sought for by the petitioners, would change the nature of the suit, the amendment, as prayed for by the petitioners, cannot be permitted. Further, the relief prayed for by the petitioners is barred by limitation. 6. The trial Court, by its order, dated 3.9.2009, had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners, in I.A.No.698 of 2009, stating that the plaintiffs have not been aware of the actual extent of land and the survey numbers in which the lands are situated. Further, the plaintiffs have not been in a position to show the extent of their individual shares and that they have not taken the necessary steps to pay the appropriate court fees in the suit, while making their claims. The trial Court had also stated that, if the amendment, sought for by the petitioners, is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit. Accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court, dated 3.9.2009, made in I.A.No.698 of 2009, in O.S.No.390 of 2004. It is noted that the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the claim of the petitioners, for amending the plaint in the suit, in O.S.No.390 of 2004, are tenable. The trial court had stated that the plaintiffs have not known the actual extent of land in survey numbers 901/2 and 901/3, while filing the suit. They cannot rely on the report of the advocate commissioner to amend the plaint, at this stage. 8. It had also been stated that the plaintiffs had not taken the necessary steps to pay the Court fees, as per law. Further, if the amendment of the plaint is permitted, it would, totally, change the nature of the suit. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court, dated 3.9.2009, made in I.A.No.698 of 2009, in O.S.No.390 of 2004. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed, as devoid of merits. No costs. Further, if the amendment of the plaint is permitted, it would, totally, change the nature of the suit. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court, dated 3.9.2009, made in I.A.No.698 of 2009, in O.S.No.390 of 2004. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed, as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.