ORDER : P. Devadass, J. 1. This matter arose out of dismissal of I.A. No. 624 of 2014 filed in O.S. No. 268 of 2012 to amend the plaint to include certain reliefs due to certain subsequent events. The plaintiff, a shop-keeper in Sevugampatti Village sought for injunction restraining the first defendant Murugesan, a Ward Councillor that the way to Plaintiff's shop should not be blocked by making any construction including a cement Water Tank. Subsequently, by way of amendment, defendants 2 and 3, who are the Panchayat, have been included with the suit. In view of the amendment, additional written statement also has been filed. 2. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 624 of 2014 to amend the plaint alleging that while the suit is pending, the defendants have put up an objectionable construction as against law, so it requires to be removed by way of mandatory injunction. 3. It was opposed by the respondent by filing a counter. 4. The trial Court coming to the conclusion that earlier the plaintiff had every opportunity to make such a prayer, but did not do so, further, the Court doubted the very prayer for amending the suit for the said relief and by allowing the amendment, the nature and character of the suit will be changed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision Petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and perused the materials on record and the impugned order. 6. It is not that the court should not take note of cognizance of certain subsequent events. In injunction suit, based on possession injunction have been sought for. Subsequently, when the defendants unauthorisedly trespassed into the property or put up some objectionable construction. It will be a subsequent event, the Court has to take note of it. If it is established by evidence and the plaintiff is also entitled to, the Court has got power to grant mandatory injunction or other appropriate relief. Now, in this injunction suit, plaintiff made allegations in the amendment petitions, that subsequently, defendants 2 and 3 have committed certain unlawful activities and made some objectionable construction in the pathway leading to his shop. Whether it is true or not is a matter to be probed and decided during trial. The trial cannot be conduct a trial within a trial. Whether it is true or not is a matter to be probed and decided during trial. The trial cannot be conduct a trial within a trial. In that LA, to bring to the notice only an amendment is sought for to bring to the notice of this Court certain subsequent developments. By allowing the amendment, the nature and character of the suit will be changed. The suit will become a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and that cannot be a ground for dismissal of the amendment petition. 7. In the circumstances, the order and decretal order passed by the learned District Munsif, Nilakkottai in I.A. No. 624 of 2014 in O.S. No. 268 of 2012 are set aside. The said LA stand allowed. The trial Court will receive the consequential amendment petition to carry out the amendment in the plaint. It will also give reasonable opportunity to the defendants/respondents to file their additional written statements, if any. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.