ORDER : This is a revision application by Nanna Lal against the order of Shri B. B.L. Agarwal, Judge Small Cause Court, Sehore, disallowing his application for amending the written-statement in view of the fact that the plaintiff had changed the date of the cause of action. 2. No period of limitation has been specifically provided for moving a revision application but it is the practice of almost all the High Courts that no such application is entertained beyond 90 days. Even if the applicant is given the benefit of S. 12 of the Indian Limitation Act by excluding the period taken in obtaining the copy of the order, the present application would be time-barred. On merits also the present case is not one in which I should interfere at this stage. 3. It has been urged on behalf of the applicant that the date of cause of action as originally given by Seth Radha Kishan was 4-11-1953 but he was allowed to change his case during the evidence by saying that the loan was advanced two months earlier. It was contended that the defendant wanted to change his written-statement so that he should be able to meet this amended version of the plaintiff. In case the facts as mentioned by the learned Counsel for the applicant are correct, the learned Judge had departed from the well settled law that no party can be permitted to change its case from what was pleaded in the plaint or in the written-statement. The Courts of Law should not admit evidence in conflict with the pleadings and even if wrongly admitted should exclude it from consideration at the time of the decision, of the suit. Thus the plaintiff should not have been permitted to change the date of cause of action unless he first of all applied for the amendment of the plaint. After the plaint had been amended the defendant was to be given time for filing additional written-statement, if any. Thereafter additional issues, if any, should be framed and evidence of the parties recorded. In view of the fact that the record of the trial Court is not before me, I am not in a position to say if the above contentions put forward by the learned Counsel are correct or not. Thereafter additional issues, if any, should be framed and evidence of the parties recorded. In view of the fact that the record of the trial Court is not before me, I am not in a position to say if the above contentions put forward by the learned Counsel are correct or not. But if there is any substance in them, the learned Judge would be well advised to proceed in the future in accordance with the law. 4. The revision application has no force and is hereby dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed.