P.N. Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This Rule was obtained by the Plaintiff against an order of the learned trial Judge, rejecting his application for amendment of the plaint, by which he sought to introduce grounds of exemption from limitation of certain claims, which were prima facie barred on the allegations, appearing in the original plaint. Such grounds of exemption not having been taken in the original plaint, objection was taken by the Defendant and the plea was taken that the said claims would be time -barred on the face of his plaint. In view of this objection the Plaintiff made his above application for amendment.
(2.) The learned trial Judge being of the view that the claims in question being prima facia barred on the original plaint, no amendment should be allowed to introduce explanation for exemption of limitation. For this view, he relied upon a decision of this Court, reported in Madan Mohan Roy v/s. A.L. Dutta and Ors., (1965) 69 C.W.N. 667. He also referred, in this connection, to the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Peer Gonda v/s. Kal Gonda : A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 363.
(3.) In our view, the learned trial Judge has not approached the matter in the proper manner and has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law in refusing the Plaintiff's prayer for amendment. The amendment in question did not seek to introduce a new cause of action. It was only an amendment sought for the purpose of giving grounds of exemption from limitation which were absent in the original plaint. There was no objection by the Defendant that the said application was mala fide and the learned trial Judge did not reject the same on that ground. We are, accordingly, of the view that the Plaintiff's application for amendment should have been allowed. This will be in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court explaining the distinction between cases of new causes of action and cases where no new cause of action is pleaded but only the plea of limitation arises. This decision is reported in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v/s. Damodar Valley Corporation : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 96.;