Amendments of pleadings should be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and do not work injustice to the other side. However, amendments will not be allowed if they introduce a new cause of action or raise a different case, particularly when the suit on the new cause of action is barred by limitation.

( 1 ) THERE to Civil Revision Petitions are directed against common Order presed by the Subordinate Judge, Chirala, on interlocutury Applications Nos. 26 and 29 of 1970 in O. S. Nos. 3 and 10 of the 1970. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions give rise to a common question of law, they are disposed by a common order. He material facts leading to the filing of these Civil Revision petitions may briefly be stated:defendant No. 2, as the Managing Partner of defendant No. 1 firm, executed two promissory notes, one la favour of Yarlagadda baliah and the other in favour of Indlamudi Veeriah, Four one-anna denomination stamps were affixed on each of those promissory notes instead 67 0-23 paise stamps as required by law. Since the promissors did not pay the moneys due by them, the promises, Yarlagadda Baliah and Indlamudi veeriab, filed suits for the recovery of moneys due tb them under those promissory notes. Those original Suits were re-numbered aso. S. No. 5 of 1910 and No, 10 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala. In their respective written statements the defendants. inter alia raised an objection that the suit promissory notes were not duly stamped according to law and hence, on that account inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. In O. S. No. 5 of 1970 the aforesaid obection raised by the defendants was over-ruled by the Subordinate Judge, who, by his order dated 17-12-1963, held that the suit primissory note was duly stamped and was admissible in evidence. The defendants carried the matter in revision to this Court in C. R. P. No, 613 of 1964. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the said revision petition holding that the suit promissory note was not duly stamped and was, consequently, inadmissible in evidence. The question whether the suit could be considered on the cause of actionas stated in the plaint, or the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint so as to fall back on the original cause of action, was left open to be decided by the trial court. In those circumstances, in both the original Suit Nos. 5 and 10 of 1970 the, plaintiffs filed I A. Nos. and 26 and 29 of 1970 respectively for amendment of their plaints, so as to fall back on the original causes of action.

( 2 ) THE Subordinate Judge, Chirala, by his common order dated 13-11-1970 dismissed both the I. As, with costs, against which the present Civil Revision petitions are filed. The learned counsel, Sri R. V. Vidya Sagar, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that it is now well established that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of detefming the real questions in controversy between the parties,. when they do not work injustice or prejudice to the other side, should be allowed. Courts have allowed amendments even at the stage of appeal, though the suits on the dates of amendment petitions were barred by limitation. The real controversy in these suits was, whether the respondents are indebted to the petitioners. The delay in filing the interlocutory applications for amendment of the plaints, was due to the fact that the lower court had held the promissory notes to be admissible in evidence, but the High Couyt reversed the view of the trial court. Although the promissory notes arc inadmissible in evidence, as promissory notes, to prove the respondens liabilities, still they can be used and locked into for the collateral purposes as acknowledgments extending the periods of limitation for filling the suits on the basis of the original causes of action Genuine claims should not be permitted to be defeated for technical reasons by refusing permission to amend the plaints. In support of the above arguments, the learned counsel relied upon a number of decided casesof the Supreme Court, this Court and various other High Courts. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the revlson petitions are not maintainable, for the simpie reason that, even assu