1. The question in this revision is whether the amendment regarding case of fraud can be introduced and should be allowed. The petitioner is the plaintiff who had filed the suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,68,536 together with interest. The 1st respondent herein is the Carrier and the 2nd respondent is the Consignee. On 31.7.1987, the consignment of 8 packages was entrusted to the 1st respondent for delivery to the 2nd respondent. Airway bill dated 31.7.1987 was issued by the 1st respondent. Since there was no information about the delivery of the goods, the petitioner made enquiries and they were informed by the 1st respondent that the consignment had been delivered. The petitioners believed this. Subsequently, when they wrote another letter regarding the date of delivery, they were informed by the 1st respondent that the goods were still in the warehouse at Taipei. The petitioners requested the 1st respondent to rebook the consignment at their cost, but the 1st respondent did not do so. The suit was therefore filed for damages arising out of the negligence of the 1st respondent as carrier of the goods.

2. The suit was filed on 28.6.1990 before