Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The petitioner contends that the lower Court ought not to have allowed the amendment of the plaint. Mr. K.V. Ramchandra Aiyar relies upon the well-known rule that no amendment should ordinarily be allowed, which has the effect of taking away an existing right from the defendant. In the first place, it is important to note that this very statement of the rule assumes that it is not an inflexible one. As the Judicial Committee observe in Charan Das v. Ameer Khan 1921 P.C. 50 (l), the special circumstances of a particular case may outweigh the considerations underlying this rule. Secondly, in the present case, by the proposed amendment, neither is a new relief prayed for based on the same cause of action nor is a fresh cause of action added. The kind of amendment which the decisions say, ought ordinarily not to be allowed, is that which takes away an existing right from the defendant. That is one thing, but it is a very different thing to say, that no amendment should be allowed, which would deprive the defendant of a bare right to raise a plea of limitation. The argument overlooks an important distinction and confuses a legal right accrued with a mere righ