ORDER This revision petition by Subedar Major Birakumar Singh is directed against the order dated 29th February, 1968 by which Shri H. Jugeswar Singh, Munsiff III, Imphal, rejected his application for amendment of the plaint. It is contended that the Munsiff had gone wrong in not permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint. 2. The suit out of which this revision petition arises had been instituted by the petitioner in his capacity as President of Manipur Rifles Ex-servicemens Colony, hereinafter called the Association, and permission of the Court was secured in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. The prayer made in the suit was for eviction of the defendant-respondent S. Mera Singh from a piece of land described in the schedule appended to the plaint. It was alleged in Para 1 of the plaint that the members of the Association had chosen the plaintiff Birakumar Singh to file the suit in representative capacity since they had all common interest in the subject-matter of the suit. In the next para it was pleaded that the Manipur Government settled 300 bighas of paddy land at Saiton under patta No. 55/229 B. T. to the Association in the year 1954 and that since then the members of the Association had been in possession of that land against payment of revenue to the Government. By the amendment application the plaintiff wanted to substitute Paras Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint on the plea that "through inadvertence certain facts have not been incorporated in the plaint" and on the assertion "that the proposed amendment will not change the character of the suit." In substance, what plaintiff wanted to state in the proposed Para No. 1 of the plaint was that in or about the year 1953 some members of the Manipur Rifles formed an Association under the name and style of "Manipur Rifles Ex-servicemens Association" with the object of looking after the affairs of the employees of the Manipur Rifles after their retirement from service, that the plaintiff is the President of the said Association, and that the members had selected him for filing the suit in a representative capacity. And in the proposed para 2 of the plaint the plaintiff wanted to allege that the Association after its constitution moved the Government of Manipur for settlement of some land with it for the use of the members of the Association on their retirement, that the Government consequently settled 300 bighas of land at Saiton under patta No. 55/229 B. T. in favour of the Association and delivered possession to them, and that Association had been holding and possessing that land in the nature of trust for the members of the Association and the Association had been paying revenue to the Government regularly. Another fact which was meant to be stated in the proposed para 2 of the plaint was that the entire piece of land measuring 300 bighas is known as "Manipur Rifles Ex-servicemens Colony". 3. The learned Munsiff rejected the prayer for amendment on the following grounds: (a) That in the original plaint it was stated that Ex-servicemens Colony at Saiton had come into existence before the land was allotted by the Government, while in the proposed amendment it was stated that the Colony came into being after the land had been settled; (b) That according to the title of the suit the Ex-servicemens Colony is situate at Imphal, that according to the proposed amendment it is located at Saiton, and that no amendment of the title of the plaint had been asked for along with the amendment of paras Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint; and (c) that in view of the amendments sought the character of the suit would be changed. 4. Shri L. Nandakumar Singh urged vehemently for the petitioner that the trial Court had rejected the prayer for amendment without appreciating its nature or comprehending the principles that govern the applications made under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code. He submitted further that it was wrong for the Munsiff to hold that the proposed amendments would change the character of the suit. I think this criticism is completely valid and wholly justified. The suit had been filed by the Association through its representative for eviction of S. Mera Singh, a trespasser, from a piece of land belonging to the Association. This basic structure of the suit would remain unchanged even if the amendments are allowed. I think this criticism is completely valid and wholly justified. The suit had been filed by the Association through its representative for eviction of S. Mera Singh, a trespasser, from a piece of land belonging to the Association. This basic structure of the suit would remain unchanged even if the amendments are allowed. The amendments only narrate the history of the Association and details of acquisition by it of the land measuring 300 bighas from the Government of Manipur. I think the learned Munsiff completely went out of his way in rejecting the prayer for amendment. 5. In a recent decision reported in A. K. Gupta v. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 , the Supreme Court observed that the general rule governing the amendments of the pleadings 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 new case or cause of action is barred by time. But it is also well recognised, the Supreme Court observed further, that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. The principal reasons that have led to this rule, the Supreme Court emphasised, are, first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes, and, secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended. The expressions "cause of action" and "new case" were also defined by the Supreme Court in the same judgment. The expression "cause of action", it was held, in the present context does not mean "every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed", for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added. Therefore, it was pointed out the expression for the purpose of amendment only means, "a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts". Therefore, it was pointed out the expression for the purpose of amendment only means, "a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts". The expression "new case" was defined to mean "new set of ideas". 6. Applying the aforementioned principles governing the amendment of the pleadings, I see no escape from the conclusion that by the proposed amendments in the instant case neither a new case would be set up nor a new cause of action introduced. The amendments only relate to most preliminary or elementary matters and the basic structure of the suit would not be affected by them. The suit as at present is, I may repeat, for the eviction of the defendant from a land which is claimed to be the property of the Association, and it shall continue to be so even after the amendments are introduced. The amendments, in other words, would have no material bearing either on the real matters in controversy or on the final outcome of the dispute. 7. As a result, I allow the petition and direct the trial Court to permit the Association to amend paras 1 and 2 of the plaint in the manner prayed for. The plaintiff may also amend the title of the suit if he feels so inclined. I allow him permission to do so. The plaintiff shall get costs from the respondent. Advocates fee Rs. 16/-. Petition allowed.