N.K.Das, J. - (1.)THIS petition is directed at the instance of the Plaintiffs against an order refusing amendment of the plaint. Plaintiffs originally claimed relief in the plaint as follows:
(a) For declaration of title and possession in respect of A. 0. 03 dec. out of plot No. 715 and A.0.01 dec. out of plot No. 716 consisting of schedule A of the plaint.

(b) For declaration of right and confirmation of possession in respect of A.0.01 dec. out of plot No. 717 by way of adverse possession.

(2.)A survey -knowing civil Court commissioner was deputed to measure the lands in question. After he submitted his report, Plaintiffs prayed for amendment of the plaint as follows:
(i) To delete the claim in respect of plot Nos. 715 and 716 and to add A.0.07 dec. out of plot No. 719 and the claim was for declaration of right by adverse possession.

(ii) Instead of A.0. 01 out of plot No. 717, the area should be A.0.07 out of the aforesaid plot and the original claim of adverse possession be retained.

No objection was filed by the Defendants to the petition for amendment of plaint when the matter was heard. The learned trial Court rejected the petition for amendment on the ground that the amendment was tantamount to a change in the nature of the suit.

It is not disputed that originally the claim of the Plaintiffs in respect of plot No. 717 was by adverse possession relating to A.0.01 dec. After receipt of the report of the survey -knowing commissioner, it was found that Plaintiffs were, in fact, in possession of A.0.02 dec. instead of A.0.01 dec. The original claim of title by way of adverse possession was retained. As regards plot Nos. 715 and 716 the prayer was to delete these plots and to substitute plot No. 719 out of which claim was in respect of A.0.07 dec. and the Plaintiffs claim it by way of adverse possession. It is contended that the claim of the Plaintiffs for amendment amounts to change the nature of the suit and a new cause of action is being introduced. The original prayer in respect of schedule B property on the ground of adverse possession still continues. Now the Plaintiffs want to add another plot in the plaint claiming right over the same by way of adverse possession. This was discovered after the report of the survey knowing civil Court commissioner was submitted. Defendants are also aware of this position after the report was submitted by the commissioner. If amendment in respect of schedule A property is now refused, Plaintiff will be compelled to file another suit in respect of plot No. 719. In my opinion, this will lead to multiplicity of suits.

(3.)IN Nichhalbhai Vallabhai v. Jaswantlal Zinabhai : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 997, it has been held that as the object of the rule for allowing amendments to the plaint was to avoid multiplicity of suits, this was a proper case in which the Court should allow the plaint to be amended; otherwise if the amendment were refused the Plaintiff would have to bring another suit. The Supreme Court in that case also followed a previous decision of that Court in L.J. Leach and 00. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. A.I.R.S.C. 357.
In A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 96, it has been held that in the matter of allowing amendment of pleading the general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new cause of action is barred. Where, however, the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts merely to a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment is to be allowed even after expiry of the statutory period of limitation.