( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I. A. No. 1010/97 in O. S. No. 131 /91. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the Electricity Board to restore the power supply to his premises. The said power supply was disconnected on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the electricity charges. The petitioner contends that the slab system is in vogue and according to which he was paying the charges under Category-I. In the suit when D. W. 1 deposed that the slab system was changed from Categor I to II, namely, from residential to commercial system the petitioner filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint. The petitioner contends that there should not be any change from category I to Category II, namely, from residential to commercial since the change of slab system from Category I to Category II is without notice. Hence, he sought for amendment of the plaint seeking a declaration that the change of slab system from Category I to Category II is illegal, etc. The learned Judge held that in the written statement itself which was filed in 1991 the respondents have stated that the slab system was changed from Category I to Category II on an inspection of the premises and therefore the petitioner at this stage cannot seek for amendment of the plaint and the amendment of the plaint is therefore barred by limitation. The learned Judge agreed with the respondents and dismissed the petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

( 2 ) ON a perusal of the plaint and written statement, I find that therespondents have stated that on inspection they found that the premises is being used for commercial purposes and therefore they have changed the slab system from residential to commercial. However, it does not say that the petitioner was notified before changing the slab system from Category I to ii. Counselfor the petitioner brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme court in L. J. Leach and Co. vs. M/s. Jardine Skinner and Company and others wherein it was held that:"it is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into consideration in exercise of the discretion as to whether the amendment should be ordered and it does not affect the power of the court to order it, if that is required in the interests of justice".

( 3 ) SINCE the respondents have not stated in the written statement that thepetitioner was notified before changing the slab system from Residential to commercial though the amendment sought for is barred by limitation in the interests of justice it is necessary to amend the plaint. Accordingly, the amendment sought for is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Civil revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The learned Judge is directed to dispose of the suit O. S. No. 131/91 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.