ORDER
Jagadeesan, J.
1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2859 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Shencottai. Originally he filed the suit for bare injunction against the respondent. Subsequently he filed I.A.No.124 of 1995 seeking for amendment of the plaint for the relief of recovery of possession. The trial court had dismissed he application against which the present revision has been filed.
2. The counsel for the petitioner contended that though the suit had been filed originally for bare injunction, the amendment sought for by the petitioner for recovery of possession would not amount to fresh cause of action or a new case. Further the amendments always should be liberally ordered when such amendments do not cause prejudice to the respondent, He also referred to two judgments reported in Adusmilli Venkateswar Rao v. Chalasani Hymavathi, and Valliammal v. Periasamy Thevar, 1990 (II) MLJ 500.
3. It is to be seen that the suit had been filed for bare injunction on the ground that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Now the amendment for recovery of possession had been sought for on the ground that the petitioner is the Muthavalli of the Wakf and the respondent is the tenant. Since the respondent failed to pay the rent cither to the Wakf or to the petitioner, he is liable to be evicted and as such the petitioner is entitled to recovery of possession. Hence the relief of recovery of possession has to be amended in the plaint.
4. From the above facts, it is clear that the amendment sought for by the petitioner is totally a new cause of action as well as a new case. The original plaint has been filed on the allegation that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. If the recovery of possession is by way of alternative relief, this Court cannot have any objection in ordering the amendment, as pointed out in the judgments referred to by the counsel for the petitioner reported in Adusmilli Venkateswar Rao v. Chalasani Hymavathi, and Valliammal v. Periasamy Thevar, 1990 (II) MLJ 500. But in this case, the amendment is based upon a new facts that the petitioner is the muthavalli and the respondent has failed to pay the rent and as such the petitioner is entitled to recover possession from the respondent. Virtually the suit for injunction has been converted into a suit for eviction on the ground of default in paying the rent. Patently the cause of action for the amendment is new cause of action and entirely different from one pleaded in the original plaint. Hence the amendment cannot be allowed.
5. Accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed.