An amendment of a plaint is permissible even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation if it 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.

1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against an order refusing amendment of the plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment, if allowed, would basically change the nature of the case.

2. The short facts are that on 30-3-1967, the petitioner despatched from Tatanagar 200 metres of cable in two cable drums to the Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, Madras. According to the original case in the plaint, on 7-1-1967, delivery of only one drum was given by the Railways to the consignee in highly damaged condition. the entire lot of cables being completely unfit for any use. The case regarding another drum was that it was not delivered at all. The case of the defendant railway in the written statement was that the first drum was delivered in sound condition and the cables had been fully utilised by the consignee and the second drum was also offered for delivery but delivery was refused.

3. On 31st May, 1973, the amendment petition in question was filed by the plaintiff. By this amendment the plaintiff wants to make out a case that the first drum was simply offered to the defendant (sic) and it refused to take the delivery as it was in a state of highly damaged and injured condition, and that the other drum was not at all offered. In other words, in place of the original statement in the plaint "That ultimately on 7-11-1967 delivery of only one drum was given by the Railways to the consignee in a highly damaged condition. ......... The other drum was not delivered at all", the plaintiff now wants to change by this amendment the word "given" by the word "offered" and the words "not delivered at all" by the words "not even offered for delivery" and mutatis mutandis amendment in other paragraphs of the plaint. As already said above, the petition for amendment has been rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that it will make altogether a new case and that it was also at a belated stage in the case.

4. So far as the stage of the case is concerned, hearing has not yet commenced. So the prayer for amendment of the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that it has been made at a belated stage.

5. I shall now take up the main ground of rejection of the prayer for amendment of the plaint, namely, as to whether by this amendment a new case was made out, and if that be so, whether on the facts of this case, it should be refused.

6. Under Section 73 of the Indian Railways Act, which deals with the general responsibility of the Railway Administration as a carrier of animals and goods, the Railway Administration has been made responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery in transit of the goods delivered for carriage, except in some exceptional circumstances mentioned thereunder, none of which has got any application in this case.

Section 78-B also enjoins upon a person entitled to refund of an overcharge or to compensation for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of the animals or goods in question, to prefer in writing his claim for the refund or compensation to the prescribed authority within six months from the date of the delivery of the goods for carriage. According to the proviso to this section, any information demanded or inquiry made in writing within the said period of six months regarding the non-delivery or delayed delivery of the goods be deemed to be sufficient compliance of the notification of claim. According to the contention of the petitioner, the notice in question was given to the prescribed authority in this case much before the consignment had reached the destination for non-delivery of the consignment, but by inadvertence, as the suit has been filed by the consignor, and not by the consignee; an inaccurate statement was made due to an apparent mistake.

7. Having examined the plaint as originally filed and the proposed amendment, it is apparent that what the plaintiff has claimed is the sum of Rs. 27,417.17 on account of the