( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dt. 4-4-84, in Civil Suit No. 9b/81, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Mandsaur/neemuch, whereby the prayer of the plaintiff/applicant for examination of himself and one witness, and for amendment in relief clause against defendant No. 4 was disallowed, the plaintiff has presented this revision.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 18,993/- on 2-4-1976 against the defendants, but in relief clause the decree was prayed against the defendants 1 to 3 only. The defendants 1 to 4, denied the claim of the plaintiff and the suit is being contested on various grounds. On 11-11-1982, as the plaintiff was ill and was admitted in hospital at Jaipur, son of the plaintiff examined himself and closed the evidence. The defendants 1 to 3 also produced their evidence and therefore, the case was posted for arguments on 4-4-84. ( 3 ) ON 4-4-1984, the plaintiff filed two applications one u/o. 18, R. 17, Civil P. C. , for allowing permission to examine the plaintiff and one witness Nandlal. Another application was filed under O. 6, R. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby an amendment in relief clause was sought for claiming the decree against the defendant 4, which was originally not mentioned in the prayer clause on the same cause of action and facts. The applications were opposed by the respective defendants. The learned trial Court dismissed the application under O. 18, R. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that when the plaintiff and defendants closed their evidence and the case was fixed for arguments, the power under O. 18, R. 17, C. P. C. cannot be exercised at the instance of the plaintiff. Another application under O. 6, R. 17, C. P. C. was dismissed on the ground that the suit was filed on 2-4-1976, and proposed amendment of relief against the defendant No. 4 has become barred by time.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel Shri G. K. Patidar for the applicant/plaintiff and Shri K. L. Goyal for the non-applicants/defendants 1 to 3 and Shri V. S. Kokje, for the non-applicant/ defendant 4 are heard. After, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am satisfied, this revision deserves to be allowed.

( 5 ) FIRST I will deal with the application under O. 6, R. 17, C. P. C. which was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the relief now being claimed against the defendant 4, who is already a party to the case, has become barred by time. The learned trial Court has lost sight of the fact that no new claim or new facts or new cause of action was being introduced by the plaintiff in the application. The defendant 4 was already a party to the suit. There was no amendment prayed in the cause of action or new facts pleaded by the plaintiff against the defendants. The plaintiff originally inadvertently or even because of carelessness, did not pray the decree against the defendant 4. The decree was prayed against the defendants 1 to 3. This omission or error is due to bona fide mistake. Even the error to be considered as not inadvertent, power to grant amendment of the pleadings is to serve the ends of justice which is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. Rules of procedure are intended to be a hand-maid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused leave because of some mistake, negligence inadvertence or even infraction of rules and procedure. The Court always grants leave to amend the pleading of the party unless the court is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent, which cannot be compensated for by an order of costs. While allowing the application for amendment, the circumstances of the case are to be considered. In the present case, the suit was already against the defendant 4, on the same cause of action and on the same set of facts. No new cause of action or set of facts was being introduced. It is not a case, where the defend