( 1 ) IN brief the facts of the case are that a suit for recovery of Rs 2,32,249. 00 was filed by Patodia and Co. against Bombay Woollen Mills Ltd on account of expenses, commission, brokerage, etc. M/s Patodia and Co, herein described itself as a partnership concern duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act. An objection was taken by the defendant that no cause of action had arisen in favour of the partnership concern. To avoid that objection, this application for amendment of the plaint has been filed mentioning therein that the plaintiff was a sole proprietory concern of which Moti Lal Patodia was the sole proprietor and subsequently the said concern became partnership concern by inducting Durga Parshad Patodia as one. SUIT NO. 1116/78 of the partners and it was registered with the Registrar of Firms on 30. 4. 77. Cause of action had arisen in favour of Moti Lal Patodia the sole proprietor of Patodia and Company. It was on account, of bonafide mistake and inadvertance that the suit has been filed by Patodia and Company partnership concern. Amendment has been sought in the title of the suit as well as in the body of the plaint showing Mod Lal Patodia as the sole proprietor of Patodia and Co.

( 2 ) THIS application has been contested by the defendant who filed written reply. It has been pleaded that the proposed amendment would entirely alter the character of the suit. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the partnership concern who is plaintiff at present and on that account the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) DURING the course of arguments it has been argued by the counsel for the respondent that the entire claim in the plaint and replication and documents filed by the partnership firm and issues framed were to the effect as to whether the plaintiff as parnter ship firm was entitled to prosecute the suit against the defendant and whether the plaintiff was entitled to sue and recover the outstanding claim as alleged by the plaintiff partnership firm as being due to it from the defendant. According to the learned counsel if the proposed amendment is allowed that would change the entire nature of the suit and that it will also alter the cause of action and in such circumstances the amendment sought for cannot be allowed. He also submitted that the amendment sought to be incorporated are barred by time and cannot be permitted by the court at this stage when the evidence is being recorded.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff put reliance upon various decisions reported in AIR 1969 S. C. 1267, AIR 1943 MADRAS 531 and AIR 1967 ORISSA 58 in support of his contention that it was due to inadvertance and bonafide mistake that the suit was filed on behalf of the partnership concern. It is a mere description of the plaintiff on account of bonafide mistake and in such cases application for amendment should not be refused. According to the learned counsel power to grant amendment of pleading is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by narrow or technical limitations. It is settled principle of law, as has been laid down by the Hon ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs National Building Material Supply AIR 1969 S. C. 1267 that rules of procedure are intended to behandmade to the adminsitration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of aparty, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had paused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of cost. However, negligent or earelsss may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment may be allowed if it can be made Without injustice to the other side.

( 5 ) IN this case, admittedly Patodia and Co was functioning as sole proprietorship concern and Moti Lal