T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS is Defendant's application for revision of the order dated 28 -2 -1970 passed by the First Additional Civil Judge Varanasi, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint was allowed. The Plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration that the attachment and sale dated 28 -10 -1967 in respect of the premises in question was null and void and did not create any right title and interest in favour of the defendant No. 3 and that the said property was not liable to sale in future for the recovery of the alleged dues of the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Defendant No. 4. In this suit the Collector and the District Magistrate, Varansi has been impleaded as the Defendant No. 1 and Smt. Prabha Gupta, the Applicant has been impleaded as Defendant No. 3. The Defendant Applicant contested the suit. In para 34 of her written statement she, inter alia, alleged that the State of Uttar Pradesh was a necessary party but the same had not been impleaded and the suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The Plaintiff thereafter moved an application dated 30th November, 1969 for amendment of the plaint in order to impleaded the State of Uttar Pradesh as the Defendant No. 5 in the suit. It was alleged, inter alia, in that application that in as much the Defendants already on the record had raised the plea that the State of U.P. was a necessary party to the suit the Plaintiff in order to avoid compilations was seeking addition of the State of U.P. as a Defendant in the suit. This application was opposed by the Defendants on the ground, inter alia, that the claim had become barred by lime and it would therefore, not be proper to implead the State of Uttar Pradesh at that stage. The court below having found that the contention that the claim had become barred by time was prima facie untenable and that the amendment sought for was necessary for purposes of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and further that it would not do any injustice to either side allowed the application for amendment of the plaint subject to payment of Rs. 50/ - as costs to the Defendants Aggrieved, the Defendant No. 3 has come up in revision.
(2.) IT was urged by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that the court below had committed an error of law in holding that the claim of the Plaintiff was not barred by time. He argued that the amendment application should not have been allowed inasmuch as it was moved at a highly belated stage when the claim was obviously barred by time. I aft not impressed by this argument. The Defendant Applicant had, as indicated above, raised a plea in her written statement that the State of Uttar Pradesh was a necessary party to the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, with a view to avoid complications sought amendment of the plaint for impleading the State of Uttar Pradesh as Defendant No. 5 in the suit. No new case was being set up by the amendment sought for. It is by now a well settled law that in the matter of allowing amendment of pleading a party should not be permitted to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new cause of action is barred by time. Where, however, the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action nor raises a different case, the amendment is to be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. See A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation : AIR 1967 SC 96. It is not disputed that the court below had the jurisdiction to make the order that it made. There is nothing to show that the court below exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. No case, therefore, has been made out for interference with the impugned order under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the result the revision fails. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs.;