The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide power to allow amendments in the interest of justice and the need to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation, as well as the rule that an amendment will be allowed 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 approach to the same facts.

I.M. Quddusi, J.

The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision lie in a narrow compass.

2. THE instant revision has been preferred by the revisionists-defendants against the order dated 23-1-2001 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Regular Suit No. 134 of 1997, Krishna Devi v. Laxmi Prasad and others by which the amendment application seeking certain amendments in the plaint as well as in replication by the plaintiff-opposite party has been allowed.

The suit in question was filed on 1st of May, 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahraich by the plain tiff-opposite party for partition of her share to the extent of 1/2 with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-revisionists from interfering in her share.

3. THE present revision has been filed on the ground, inter alia, that by the proposed amendment, a new cause of action based on the Will dated 8-9-1979 has been sought for; that the plaintiff-defendant had never based her claim on the Will dated 8-9-1979 and the learned Court below has wrongly held that the opposite party had already said in her replication that she had filed Regular Suit No. 65 of 1979 on the basis of aforesaid Will which has become time barred; that an effort has been made to delay the disposal of the case by the proposed amendment because now the case is at the stage of end of the evidence.

4. I HAVE heard learned counsel for the revisionists-defendants and learned counsel for caveator-opposite party at length and I am of the opinion that keeping pending this revision any more would not be proper and, therefore this revision is finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.

A perusal of the documents produced by the learned counsel for the caveator-opposite party show that the par ties HAVE come to this Court in fourth round of litigation. Earlier writ petitions bearing No. W. P. No. 133 (M/s) of 1988, Smt. Krishna Devi v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, W. P. No. 134; (M/s) of 1998, Smt. Krishna Devi v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, W. P. No. 2753 (M/s) of 1999, Laxmi Prasad v, Civil judge and CR No. 18 of 1999, laxmiprasadv, Smt. Krishna Devi, HAVE been filed by the parties which were disposed of by this Court.

5. BY the impugned order, the learned Court below has allowed the plaintiff-opposite party to incorporate certain amendments in the plaint and in replication as well.

6. LEARNED counsel for the revisionist-defendants has argued that no amendment can be allowed if the basis of the claim is sought to be changed or added or if the claim is barred by time. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the case of Munni Lal v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. , 1996 (1) SCC 90, in which amendment of pleading was sought for seeking consequential relief in the appellate Court to which the apex Court held to be not permissible. In the case of Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2358, the apex Court held that amendment of plaint seeking declaration that the gift deed was obtained illegally and fraudulently, filed beyond period of limitation would defeat right accrued in favour of defendant and therefore, such amendment was deprecated. In the case of AD. M v. Prabhakar Chaturvedi, AIR 1996 SC 2359, relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionists relates to service matter where subsequent request after long time for examination of some witnesses was rejected by the authority and the High Court set aside the dismissal of the employee on the ground of rejection of the said request but the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the decision holding that view taken by the High Court was not proper.

Learned counsel for the opposite party (plaintiff) has placed reliance on the case of B. K. Narayanana Pillai v. Parameshwaran Pillai (sic), All CJ SC 623, in which, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in paras 4 and 5 of the reports: (4) "the purpose and object of Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. is to allow eithe