Short Note : 1. The revision was against an interlocutory order whereby the plaintiff was refused leave to amend the plaint. 2. The plaintiff's suit, as originally constituted was to challenge termination of his service. He alleged malice on the part of the Principal in terminating his services. He claimed reinstatement and a declaration that he should be deemed to be continuing in service. The plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint. He wanted to introduce certain facts to show malice which the Principal bore against him. The learned trial Judge rejected the application saying that it was sufficient to allege malice and it was not necessary for the plaintiff to allege the circumstances proving it. They can be brought in evidence. This order is contrary to law of pleading According to the law of pleading all facts must be averred in the plaint. Evidence need not be clear. The learned trial Judge ought to have made a distinction between allegations of facts and enumeration of evidence. Malice having been pleaded initially in the plaint, the plaintiff was only amplifying his pleading by stating facts. The trial Court does not say in the impugned order that the cause of action is being altered, or the nature of the suit is being changed. The order of the learned Additional District Judge is based on misconception of law of pleading. Learned counsel for the defendants takes exception to the prayer clause which is sought to be amended by the application Originally the plaintiff had claimed only reinstatement i.e. declaration that he should be deemed to be in service, but now he is claiming all arrears of salary, annual increments, normal allowances, college contribution and other monetary benefits that would have accrued to him with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of termination of his services to the date of reinstatement. The objection is that that for all these reliefs no limitation was left when the application for amendment was made and if the amendment was allowed, it would relate back to the date of the suit which would be pre-judicial to the defendants. They will be losing a valuable right to plead limitation. This objection cannot be accepted, the objects of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the right of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes. They will be losing a valuable right to plead limitation. This objection cannot be accepted, the objects of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the right of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes. A.K. Gupta and Sons vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 , Charan Das vs. Amir Khan, AIR 1921 PC 50 , L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. vs. Jardine Skinner and Co. AIR 1957 SC 357 , Cropper vs. Smith, 1884 (26) Ch. D. 700, relied on. Revision allowed.