( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in IA. No. 6/85 in O. S. No. 199/85 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kovur.

( 2 ) THE said Interlocutory Application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17c. P. C. to amend the plaint in the manner given below :- (I) In para-3 of the plaint, after the words "grant of " the following may be inserted: "declaration and", (ii) In para-4 of the plaint, after the words "grant of", the following may be inserted: "declaration and", (iii) In para-5 of the plaint, after the words "relief of" the following may be inserted: "declaration and", (iv) In para-6a of the plaint, after the words "granting", the following may be inserted: "decleration and".

( 3 ) THE said application was resisted by the respondent in the petition.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing both the sides the learned Munsif held that the proposed amendment, i. e. , relief of declaration, isbarred by limitation by virtue of Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the amendment cannot be granted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed directing the parties to bear their own costs.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the present Revision is filed.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amendment sought does not change the nature of the suit. The plaintiff can amend the plaint at any time as is envisaged in Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. The relief sought does not introduce any new cause of action. It is based on the old facts.

( 7 ) THE petitioner stated that originally his father was a party to the suit. The petitioner came on record only on 23-6-1994. He noticed that his father did not pray for declaration of title along with mandatory injunction. Consequently he was compelled to file the petition. However, the petition is within 3 years from the date the petitioner came on record. There is no question of the petition becoming time barred. He further submitted that if the circumstances permit and no prejudice is caused to the other side, the amendment can be allowed even after expiry of limitation for a complete and effective disposal of the case. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation wherein the Supreme court held as follows:-"7. It is not in dispute that at the date of the application for amendment a suit for a money claim under the contract was barred. The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon vs. Neale (1887) 19 QBD 394. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation: See: Charan Das vs. Amir Khan, 47 Ind. App. 255 (AIR 1921 PC 50) and L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. vs. Jardine Skinner and Co. , 1957 SCR 438 (AIR 1957 SC 357 ). 8. The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper vs. Smith, (1884) 26 Ch. D. 700 (710-711)) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand vs. Rachappa Vithoba (1909) ILR 33 Bom. 644 atp. 651, approved in Pirgonda hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda, 1957 SCR 595 (603): (AIR 1957 SC 363 at p. 366) ). "

( 8 ) HE also brought to my notice a Bench judgment of this Court in Konduru seshu Reddi vs. Vemareddy Rama Raghava reddy and others. In this case a Bench of this Court held:"in two recent decisions