Judgment :- 1. This is a petition to revise an order of the District Judge of Alleppy refusing leave to amend a plaint. According to the plaint allegations, defendant had pattuvaravu dealings with the plaintiff and under the pattuvaravu account plaintiff had to get from the defendant a sum of B. Rs. 14283-9-5 on 25-3-1123. Plaintiff prepared five Demand Drafts for B. Rs. 5,200/- out of the said amount on 24-3-1123, corresponding to 10-11-1947 and cashed them at the South India Bank Limited. As the defendant refused to honour the Drafts when the Bank presented them to him, plaintiff brought the suit in the District Court for recovery of the amount of B. Rs. 5,200/- for which the drafts had been drawn and interest and incidental expenses and costs. It was also stated in the plaint that for the balance due to him under the pattuvaravu account plaintiff would file a separate suit. Defendant contended that he had only purchased goods from the plaintiff and had no pattuvaravu dealings or accounts with him. According to the defendant, the amount mentioned in the plaint as due from him was not correct, and the plaintiff's right to sue on the accounts had become barred by limitation. He contended further that he had not agreed to plaintiff drawing demand drafts on him, that the plaintiff had therefore no right to draw the drafts mentioned in the plaint, and that the suit was consequently not maintainable. After the defendant filed his written statement plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint seeking to base his cause of action on the accounts also, and also to recover the entire amount alleged to be due to him under the account and not merely the amount of B. Rs. 5,200/- covered by the drafts. The defendant opposed the application, and the lower court dismissed it. Hence this petition. 2. The reasons given by the lower court for dismissing the application are that the plaintiff had expressly reserved in the plaint his right to file a separate suit for the balance and that since it is the defendant's case that a suit on accounts is barred by limitation the amendment, if allowed, would defeat the right he has acquired by lapse of time. The reservation by the plaintiff of his right to file a separate suit for the balance over the amount of B. Rs. The reservation by the plaintiff of his right to file a separate suit for the balance over the amount of B. Rs. 5,200/- for which he had drawn the Drafts and instituted this suit can be no ground for refusing leave to amend the plaint so far as the amount of B. Rs. 5,200/- already sued for is concerned. It is contended in this court that the cause of action and the character of the suit will be changed even in respect of this amount of Rs. 5.200/- if the amendment is allowed. In view of the allegation in the plaint that the amount for which the plaintiff drew the Drafts was part of the amount due to him under the pattuvaravu account, I do not consider that the amendment sought for will introduce an entirely new cause of action or fundamentally change the character of the suit in so far as the amount of Rs. 5,200/- is concerned. The objection based on the ground of limitation has also to be repelled so far as the amount of Rs. 5,200/- is concerned. The following observations made by the Travancore High Court in Krishna lyen v. Parameswara Iyen, XIV T.L.J. 313 are very pertinent in this connection: "But I have to observe that assuming that the plea of limitation is open to the defendant, it is not an inflexible rule that an amendment should not be allowed which would deprive him of that plea. Peculiar circumstances may take the case out of the ordinary rule. Amendments have been allowed by the Privy Council in such cases on the ground that if the plaintiff were left to bring a separate suit, it might be met by a plea of limitation, which was considered inequitable under circumstances. See Sattappa v. Jogi [I.L.R.17 Mad. 67], Dhaniram v. Bhagirath [I. L. R. 22 Cal. 692] and Mahamed Zahoor v. Thakaoranee Rutta [1] M. I. A. 468]. It cannot be said that the relief sought to be inserted in the plaint by the amendment alters the character of the suit or relates to a question which is foreign to the nature of the suit as originally framed. 692] and Mahamed Zahoor v. Thakaoranee Rutta [1] M. I. A. 468]. It cannot be said that the relief sought to be inserted in the plaint by the amendment alters the character of the suit or relates to a question which is foreign to the nature of the suit as originally framed. On the other hand it relates to a question that is intimately connected with the relief claimed by the plaintiff, and is actually one that should be considered by the court in determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed by him. The amendment therefore is necessary for the satisfactory disposal of the suit. The mere fact that the plaintiff omitted to pray for a relief as regards the assignment is not a sufficient reason for refusing the amendment prayed for. As held in Muthumala V. Bhagavati Perumal [28 T. L. R. 1], courts are to act with liberality in the matter of granting amendments and ought to correct all kinds of errors and mistakes which are not fraudulent or intended to overreach. The same view is forcibly expressed by Lord Justice Bowen in Cropper V. Smith [L.R. 26 Ch. D. 700]. His Lordship, observes. "I know of no kind of error or mistake, which if not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the court ought not to correct, if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy, and I do not regard such an amendment as a matter of favour or grace." For these reasons, I am of opinion that the second objection also fails." In a similar case Seetharama Iyen v. Narayana Iyen reported in XXV T.L.J. 543 it was held: "In the plaint as originally filed all the facts necessary for a decree upon the original cause of action, the oral loan, are given except the date of the oral loan. The defendants cannot say that they were prejudiced in such a way as cannot be compensated by the award of costs. They say that a suit on the original cause of action was time barred on the date of this suit. The defendants cannot say that they were prejudiced in such a way as cannot be compensated by the award of costs. They say that a suit on the original cause of action was time barred on the date of this suit. But plaintiffs rely upon a certain acknowledgments to save the suit from limitation, and it is for the trial court to determine whether the acknowledgments are valid and if so to what extent they are valid. Amendments have been allowed where a fresh suit on the date of amendment would otherwise be time barred. Vide Baboo Dhunput Singh V. Gooman Singh [11 M. I. A. 468], Pitchers v. Edney [4 Bing N.C. 721]. The New Fleming Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd v. Kessowji Naik [I. L. R. 9 Bom. 373], Barkatun-Nissa v. Muhamad Asad Ali [I.L.R.17 Allah. 288]. Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [I.L.R. 33 Bom. 644] and Sevugan Chetty V. Krishna Aiyengar [I. L. R. 36 Mad. 378]. I think that the learned District Munsiff has not used his discretion properly in dismissing the prayer for amendment.' I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the learned District Judge is wrong in refusing leave to amend the plaint in so far as the amount of B. Rs. 5,200/- is concerned, and that the amendment prayed for should be allowed in regard to that amount. 3. The prayer to recover the balance amount due to the plaintiff under the Pattuvaravu account also in this suit stands on an entirely different footing. The plaintiff had expressly stated in the plaint that he would file a separate suit for that balance. It is now urged that it was because the plaintiff had bona fide believed that the defendant would pay the balance without any suit that he filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,200/- alone. When the defendant had refused to pay even the sum of Rs. 5,200/- out of the amount of Rs. 14283-9-5 alleged to be due to the plaintiff, I fail to see how the plaintiff could have bona fide believed that the defendant would pay the balance without a suit. This is a case in which the plaintiff deliberately elected to sue only for a portion of the amount alleged to be due to him and intentionally put off claiming the balance. This is a case in which the plaintiff deliberately elected to sue only for a portion of the amount alleged to be due to him and intentionally put off claiming the balance. He must have done so because it was to his advantage to do so at the time when he filed the suit; and if by the lapse of time the claim in respect of the balance has become barred by limitation he cannot be allowed to take away from the defendant the right that has accrued to the latter by his (plaintiff's) own deliberate act. Regarding restrictions to the powers of courts in the matter of allowing amendments, it has been laid down in Narendra Nath v. Ganesh Prasad (A.I.R.1946 Pat. 408: "One restriction is that there is no power to substitute one distinct cause of action for another as was stated by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in that very case. Another principle is that ordinarily leave to amend will be refused where the effect of the proposed amendment is to take away from the respondent a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, but this is a principle which will apply ordinarily and not in every case. No circumstance exists in this case for taking it out of the ordinary rule. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend the plaint so as to include the claim for the balance amount also in this suit. 4. In the result, the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint so far as the amount of B. Rs. 5,200/- covered by the five Demand Drafts and interest thereon sued for in the original plaint is concerned, and his prayer for including a claim for the balance amount also in this suit is refused. The order of the lower court is modified accordingly. The plaintiff-petitioner will pay the costs of the defendant-counter-petitioner in this court, advocate's fee Rs. 50/-. Order modified.