Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against an order by which the trial Court has refused an application for amending the plaint. Held: A perusal of the amendment application shows that the plaintiffs wanted to plead that the sale made by their father as guardian Was bad as it was made without the permission of the District Judge. The plaintiffs also want to add a relief for setting aside the sale. The trial Court has taken the view that the relief for setting aside the sale was barred by limitation and therefore, the amendment could not be allowed. The trial Court has referred to Article 109 of the Limitation Act. But that is mistake. The article applicable for setting a sale made by a guardian would be Article 60. It is, however, not necessary to go into the question whether the relief for setting aside the sale would be barred by limitation, because the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-applicants does not press the amendment application in so far as it seeks to add the relief for setting aside the sale. I do not find any reason why the amendment that the transfer was made without the permission of the District Judge should not be allowed to be added. Revision partly allowed.