Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against an order by which certain amendments have been allowed by the trial Court to be incorporated in the plaint. Held : Learned counsel for the defendants-applicants contends that the facts on which these amendments have been introduced were known to the plaintiffs at the time when the suit was instituted and they should have made those allegations in the beginning itself and, therefore these amendments should not have been allowed. The learned counsel relies upon the case of Reserve Bank of India v. R.G. Morey ( AIR 1976 SC 830 ). In that case, the amendment application was made at a late stage and was disallowed by the trial Court. In that context, the Supreme Court pointed out that the plaintiff had not shown any apparent reason why the amendments were not made earlier and were left out from the plaint. The ruling of the Supreme Court cannot be read to mean that no amendment can be allowed which is based on facts existing on the date when the plaint was instituted; otherwise, the law would be that amendment will be allowed only on facts happening subsequent to the filing of the plaint. In the instant case, it is obvious that the plaintiffs counsel by mistake failed to make the allegations which have now been incorporated by way of amendment. The amendment application was made before the evidence was recorded. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial Court acted in excess of jurisdiction, or illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Revision dismissed.