made in the plaint, such an amendment cannot be permitted. In the present case, the original plea in the plaint and the plea raised in the proposed amendment do not simply go together. If really the plaintiffs intend to base their claim on the proposed plea that it is a Government land and they have acquired occupancy rights and they are entitled for grant of such occupancy rights, the proper course would be to approach the concerned authorities in that regard. The inconsistent pleas raised by the plaintiffs in the original plaint and the proposed amendment do not therefore go together and hence, the proposed amendment, if allowed would certainly bring about total change in the nature and complexion of the suit, which is impermissible. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for amendment of the plaint, as proposed. The impugned order, dismissing the said application, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction as the same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
