( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed under S. 115 CPC. arising out of proceedings under the Mysore Land Reforms Act. As respondent was unrepresented, i requested Sri Tukaram S. Pai to assist the Court in the disposal of the matter. Sri Tukaram S. Pai placed all the aspects of the case and I am thankful to him for the same. Petitioner filed an application on 27-9-1966 claiming resumption of the land from the respondent on the ground that the land is required for bonafide personal cultivation. The inquiry was held and evidence was led by the parties. At that stage an application for amendment of the resumption petition was filed. That application was resisted by the tenant urging that the proposed amendment will alter the entire nature of the proceedings. It was submitted that a proceeding for resumption and a statement under S. 14 (7) of the Act are totally different, and in a proceeding for resumption, the question of determination whether the person is a small holder does not arise. The learned trial Judge took the view that when cnce the applicant placed his choice for resumption under S. 14 (1), he cannot have recourse to Sec. 14 (7), after the period prescribed by 'the act. ( 2 ) IT is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision petition. In the application for amendment, it has been stated that the petitioner is a small holder and that the suit said land should be continued with the tenant for five years, and thereafter, permission for resumption may be granted. It is this amendment that was sought for. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the lower Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it in refusing to grant the amendment prayed for, and therefore, this Court should interfere and set aside the order passed by the lower Court and grant the application for amendment. For that purpose, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act as also the principles governing granting amendment of pleadings. ( 3 ) AS regards the grant of amendment of pleadings the principles governing the same have been laid down in the recent pronouncement of the supreme Court. In A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn. ( 3 ) AS regards the grant of amendment of pleadings the principles governing the same have been laid down in the recent pronouncement of the supreme Court. In A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn. , AIR 1967 SC 96 the suit was filed by plaintiff-appellant alleging that he had done contract work for the respondent, and under the terms the appellant was entitled to claim the whole of the amount of increase, and so claimed declaration that on a proper interpretation of the clause he was entitled to an enhancement of 20 per cent over the tendered rates. The respondent challenged the interpretation placed and the sole dispute was in respect of the contract and there was no other dispute. An application for amendment of the plaint to include money claim under the same contract was made and the same having been refused, the question was determined by the Supreme Court stating:" (7) It is not in dispute that at the date of the application for amendment, a suit for a money claim under the contract was barred. The general rule, no doubt, 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 the new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neale ( (1887) 19 QBD 394 ). But it is also well recognised 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: See Charan das v. Amir Khan (47 Ind. App. 255) and L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. (1957 SCR. 438 ). App. 255) and L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. (1957 SCR. 438 ). (8) The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned 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 (Gropper v. Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 (710-711)) 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 (Kisandas rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba (1909) ILR 33 Bom. 644 at 651), approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda ( 1957 SCR 595 (603)) : (9) The expression "cause of action" in the present context does not mean "every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed" as was said in Cooks v. Gill ( (1873) 8 CP 107 (116) ). In a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corporation Ltd. ( (1962) 2 All. E. R. 24), and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words 'new case' have been understood to mean 'new set of ideas' Doran v. J. W. Ellis and Co. , Ltd. ( (1962) 1 all. E. R. 303 ). This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time. "in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , it has been laid down as follows:" Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence, or even infraction of the rules of procedure. "in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , it has been laid down as follows:" Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence, or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. " ( 4 ) THE other decision cited before me was Gopalakrishna Murthi v. Sreedhara rao, AIR 1950 Mad. 32 wherein it was held:" If by reason of the subsequent events certain rights accrue to the plaintiff the plaintiff would be entitled to claim relief under those rights by amendment. But where certain facts are alleged which facts were available to the plaintiff and which the plaintiff has not chosen to mention in the original plaint it would not be open to a Court to permit such an amendment as it would permit a new case to be made on facts which were available but were not pleaded. " ( 5 ) IT is in the light of the principles laid down in these cases that the court is required to determine whether the amendment prayed for could be granted. The principles established by these decisions are that when the facts which are alleged in the amendment application are available to a party and the party has not chosen to mention the same, it is not open to the Court to permit such an amendment as it would permit a new case to be made on facts which were available but not pleaded. Further no amendment will be allowed to introduce new set of ideas to the prejudice of any party acquired by any party by the lapse of time. Further, if by the blunder, the injury is caused to the other side and it cannot be compensated, then amendment cannot also be granted. Further no amendment will be allowed to introduce new set of ideas to the prejudice of any party acquired by any party by the lapse of time. Further, if by the blunder, the injury is caused to the other side and it cannot be compensated, then amendment cannot also be granted. The relevant provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the rules are extracted below :" S. 2 (31) 'small holder' means a land owner owning land not exceeding two basic holdings whose total net annual income including the income from such land does not exceed one thousand two hundred rupees. "" S. 14. Resumption of land from tenants. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Ss. 22 and 43, but subiect to the provisions of this section and of sections 15 to 20 and 41, a landlord may, if he bona fide requires land, other than land referred to in the first proviso to clause (29) of sub-sec. (A) of Section 2, (i) for cultivating personally, or (ii) for any non-agricultural purpose, file with the Court a statement indicating the land or lands owned by him and which he intendsi to resume and such other particulars as may be prescribed. On such statement being filed, the Court shall, as soon as may be after giving an opporunity to be heard to the landlord and such of his tenant and other persons as mav be affected, and having due regard to contiguity and fair distribution of lands, and after making such other inquiries as the Court deems necessary, determine the land or lands which the landlord shall be entitled to resume and shall issue a certificate to the landlord to the effect that the land or lands specified in such certificate has been reserved for resumption; and thereupon the right to resume possession shall be exercisable onlv in respect of the lands specified in such certificate and shall not extend to any other land. * * * * sec. 14 (2) (a) Tn respect of tenancies existing on the appointed day, the statement under sub-sec. (1) shall be filed within fifteen months from that day. S. 14 (2) (a) In respect of tenancies existing on the appointed day, the statement under sub-sec. (1) shall be filed within five years from the date of creation of the tenancy: ****** s. 14 (3) Save as provided in sub-sec. (1) shall be filed within fifteen months from that day. S. 14 (2) (a) In respect of tenancies existing on the appointed day, the statement under sub-sec. (1) shall be filed within five years from the date of creation of the tenancy: ****** s. 14 (3) Save as provided in sub-sec. (7), if no statement is filed within the period specified in sub-sec. (2), all the land held by the landlord concerned, and where such statement has been filed, lands other than lands in respect of which the certificate under sub-sec. (1) is issued, shall be deemed to be non-resumable lands leased to tenants for purposes of this Act. S. 14 (4) In respect of tenancies existing on the appointed day, as soon as may be after the expiry of fifteen months from the appointed day and in respect of tenancies created after the appointed day, as Soon as may be after the statement under sub-sec. (1) is filed, the court shall after such inquiry as it deems fit, determine the lands which will be non-resumable lands to tenants for purposes of this Act. S. 14 (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-sections, a landlord who is a small holder, a widow or an unmarried woman may within the period specified in sub-sec. (2), file a statement before the Court that he or she does not intend to resume any land leased to a tenant and when any such statement is filed, such small holder, widow or unmarried woman shall not thereafter be entitled to resume any such land, except with the previous sanction of the Court: ****** s. 16. . . . . The right of a landlord to resume for cultivating the land personally under S. 14, shall be subject to the following conditions namely : ****** (10b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1) to (10) (both inclusive) or S. 142, the extent of land, if any, resumable, by any landlord in Bombay Area, shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948. as inserted by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1355 (Bombay Act 13 of 1956), notwithstanding the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy (Suspension of Provisions and Amendment) Act, 1957 (Mysore Act 13 of 1957 ). Rule 7. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948. as inserted by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1355 (Bombay Act 13 of 1956), notwithstanding the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy (Suspension of Provisions and Amendment) Act, 1957 (Mysore Act 13 of 1957 ). Rule 7. Application for resumption of land (1) The statement for resumption of land under sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 shall be in Form I and all persons who have interest in the land to be resumed shall be made parties to it. (2) Where the applicant holds lands in the jurisdiction of more than one Court, the statement shall be made in triplicate before the court in whose jurisdiction the greater part of the land held by him is situated. Rule 31. Appeals and Applications (1) Every appeal, petition, application or other document presented to any authority shall be presented by the party making such appeal, or petition or application or other document or by his recognised agent, his pleader or advocate, in the office during office hours on be sent by registered post addressed to the authority to whom it is presented by designation. (2) Every such appeal or petition or application or other document shall, unless a Form is prescribed for the purpose: * * * *" ( 6 ) THE position that will emerge as a result of these provisions is that an application for resumption has to be filed within fifteen months from the appointed date i. e. 2-10-1965. Thereafter a landlord cannot make an application for resumption with regard to the tenants existing on the appointed date. To such an applcation, all the persons who are interested in the land are required to be made parties as prescribed bv Rule 7 of the rules. The Court is required to make such inquiry and determine lands as regards which certificate for resumption is to be granted and determine what is non-resumable. The method of enquiry is provided for under s. 115 of the Act. ( 7 ) AS against this, under sub-sec. (7) of S. 14 of the Act, a small holder, widow, unmarried woman may file a statement before the Court that she does not intend to resume any land leased to a tenant. When such a statement is filed such a small holder etc. ( 7 ) AS against this, under sub-sec. (7) of S. 14 of the Act, a small holder, widow, unmarried woman may file a statement before the Court that she does not intend to resume any land leased to a tenant. When such a statement is filed such a small holder etc. , shall not be entitled to resume any such land except with the previous sanction of the Court and such sanction cannot be granted before 2-10-1970. So the statement required to be filed under sub-sec. (7) is a unilateral declaration made by a small holder etc. and such declaration has to be filed within the period prescribed. The statement has to be in accordance with Rule 31 giving the details as prescribed therein. Further, the Act contemplates no inquiry. It has only to be filed. The consequence of filing the statement is provided in the section itself, viz. , that the small holder etc. , are not entitled to resume any lands except with the previous sanction. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed and cannot be disputed that a statement as provided in S. 14 (7) of the Act has not been filed within the time. On the contrary, application for resumption has been filed under S. 14 (1) of the Act. By the application under S. 14 (1) the landlord asks for resumption, but by a statement made under sub-sec. (7) of the S. 14 of the Act, the small holder intimates the Court that he does not want resumption. It is important to note that in such a statement under Section 14 (7) of the Act there cannot be a prayer for resumption there or on a later date, as seeking resumption is a later event as it cannot be asked or be given before 2-10-1970. The claim under Section 14 (1), and a statement under S. 14 (7) appear to be mutually exclusive. Under Or. 6, r. 17 CPC. all amendments are granted to determine the real controversy between the parties in the original proceedings. If this is the principle governing the grant of amendments, I am unable to see on what principle the prayer made by the petitioner can be granted. The real matter in controversy is being substituted and controversy sought to be introduced between the parties is not the controversy as in the original proceedings. If this is the principle governing the grant of amendments, I am unable to see on what principle the prayer made by the petitioner can be granted. The real matter in controversy is being substituted and controversy sought to be introduced between the parties is not the controversy as in the original proceedings. In that view, I am unable to see as to how the application for amendment in the present case can be granted, which seeks to completely alter the nature of the proceedings. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter it has to be held that the decision given by the Court below dismissing the application for amendment was perfectly justified. CRP. 1585 of 1970 therefore fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .