( 1 ) THESE are two appeals by the common defendant in O. S. Nos. 381 and 382 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the First Munsiff, Bangalore. The respodent in both the appeals is the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. The Corporation brought two suits for recovery of arrears of tax from the common defendant in respect of two premises. In O. S. No. 381 of 1964 the Corporation claimed a sum of Rs. 539-29p in respect of the years 1958-59 to 1963-64; in OS. No. 382 of 196% the Corporation originally claimed a sum of Rs. 265-86 for the same period. The plaints were filed on 31-3-1964. On 15-12-1966 the Corporation applied for amendment of the plaints. In O. S. No. 381 of 1964 the amount claimed was reduced as a result of the amendment, from Rs,539-29 to Rs. 242-54p. In O. S. No. 382 of 1964 the original claim of Rs. 265-86 P was enhaced to Rs. 512-81p. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in respect of the year 1958-59 in both the suits on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The rest of the claim as amended was decreed in full. ( 2 ) IN there appeals, the only ground urged by Sri P. R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the appellant was that on the date of the application for amendment of the plaint viz. 15-12-1966 the claim for some of the years would have been barred by limitation and further that in O. S. No. 382 of 1964 the plaintiff has not paid additional court fee on the enhanced amount. In O. S. No. 381 of 1964, by the amendment, the claim was reduced and therefore there is no question of paying additional court fee. Since the amount claimed was reduced, there is no question of the claim being barred by limitation. In O. S. No. 382 of 1964 the trial court allowed the amendment overruling the defendant's objections. In allowing the amendment, the Court has to consider whether the plaintiffs claim" in respect of the amended relief would be barred by limitation on the date of the amendment application. In O. S. No. 382 of 1964 the trial court allowed the amendment overruling the defendant's objections. In allowing the amendment, the Court has to consider whether the plaintiffs claim" in respect of the amended relief would be barred by limitation on the date of the amendment application. Once the amendment is allowed, that amendment relates back to the date of the institution of the suit and the relevant date for consideration whether the amended claim is barred by limitation or not is the date of the institution of the suit. In regard to the additional court fee in O. S. No. 382 of 1964, it was necessary that the plaintiff should have paid additional court fee. Both the Courts below did not consider this question; but there is power under the Mysore Court Fees Act for this Court to direct the plaintiff to pay the additional court fee. The plaintiff will not be entitled to execute the decree in O. S. No. 382 of 1964 unless the Corporation pays the additional court fee required on the enhanced amount. It is sufficient if it is so ordered. ( 3 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, subject to the above directions, the appeals are dismissed and decrees of the Courts below are confirmed. The respondent's counsel being absent, there will be no order as to costs in this Court. --- *** --- .