RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THE first limb of paragraph 9 (b) inserted to the plaint by way of an amendment and permitted by the lower Court reads that on account of fraud practiced by the petitioner and others in the earlier litigation the first respondent was deprived of her share in the profits realised by the firm of which she, the petitioner and some others were partners while second limb of the paragraph reads that the period spent by the first respondent in bona fide prosecuting the remedies available to her in law in the earlier litigation should be excluded in reckoning the period of limitation for the purpose of the suit instituted by her. It is not denied that enough averments were made in the plaint orginally in support of the plea of exclusion of the period spent by the first respondent in bona fide prosecuting the remedies available to her in the earlier litigation. No serious exception can therefore, be taken to insertion of the second limb of paragraph 9 (b) to the plaint. The only grievance ventilated by Sri M. Jagannadharao on behalf of the petitioner is that allegations of traud contained in the first limb of paragraph 9 (b) were introduced for the first time and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document