N. D. VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against an order dated 17-4-1978 of the 1st additional Civil Judge, Kolar, passed on 1. A. No. 4 in O. S. No. 12 of 1976 on his file. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the defendant and the respondent, the plaintiff in the said suit. I. A. No. 4 was an application filed by the plaintiff under Or. VI, R 17 C. P. C. , claiming an amendment of the plaint on the lines sought therein. The Court below, by the order referred to above, has allowed the amendment. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff's suit is for recovery of money. Para-4 of the plaint contains particulars as to the suit claim. That para reads as follows:- 4. That the particulars of the sums due are:1. Principal due under the on demand pro-note and consideration receipt dated 16-3-1973; rs. 30,000-00 2. Interest from 16-3-73 at 1. 50% per month upto date rs. 16,185-00 total : rs. 46, 185-00"by the amendment sought for in I. A. No. 4 the plaintiff seeks permission of the court to delete the words "under the on demand pronote and consideration receipt dated 16-3-1973" appearing after the words "principal" due in sub-para (1) of para-4 extracted above. ( 4 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of I. A no. 4 the plaintiff swears that he wants to base his claim not on the pronote but on the original cause of action. it being advancing of the loan which had taken place earlier to the execution of the pronote and the consideration receipt referred to above. He further states that if the words sought to be deleted now are allowed to remain, as they are in the plaint, the same would give rise to some confusion (paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed along with I. A. No. 4 ). ( 5 ) BY the time I. A. No. 4 was filed evidence in the suit had commenced. The plaintiff was getting himself examined. When the pronote, referred to above, was sought to be marked at the time of the evidence of the plaintiff, objection was raised by the defendant stating that it is insufficiently stamped and hence in admissible in evidence. The court has yet to decide this question. It is at that stage i. A. No. 4 came to be filed. When the pronote, referred to above, was sought to be marked at the time of the evidence of the plaintiff, objection was raised by the defendant stating that it is insufficiently stamped and hence in admissible in evidence. The court has yet to decide this question. It is at that stage i. A. No. 4 came to be filed. Objections raised to I. A. 4. by the defendant have been over-ruled stating that the plaintiff was not trying to make out a new case ; that the amendment, if allowed, would not in any way prevent the defendant from contending that the suit was not based on the original cause of action ; and that it would still be open to the court to find out whether the suit is based on the original cause of action or on the pronote. ( 6 ) I have referred to the averments the plaintiff has made in the affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 4. It is true that in that very affidavit he also states at para-2 that "it is clear from the averments at para 2 of the plaint that the contract of the loan is anterior to the actual execution of the pronote and the consideration receipt". ( 7 ) THERE are large number of cases dealing with this question. After examining the various authorities it is stated as follows in mulla's Code of Civil Procedure, Vol-I 13th Ed. at page-728 ;"leave to amend when refused : It follows from what has been stated above that leave to amend should be refused :- 1. Where the amendment is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, as where it is. i) merely technical, or ii) useless and of no substance. 2. Where the plaintiff's suit would be wholly displaced by the proposed amendment. 3. Where the effect of the amendment would be to take away from the defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time. 4. Where the amendment would introduce a totally different, new and inconsistent case, and the application is made at a late stage of the proceedings. 5. Where the application for amendment is not made in good faith". 4. Where the amendment would introduce a totally different, new and inconsistent case, and the application is made at a late stage of the proceedings. 5. Where the application for amendment is not made in good faith". ( 8 ) MORE than three years have elapsed between the date on which the loan is said to have been advanced and the date of the application to amend the plaint. If, as the plaintiff states, there are already averments in the plaint on which he can rely to base his suit on the alleged original cause of action, the amendment sought for may be either technical or useless and of no substance in which case the amendment should not be allowed. If that assertion of his is not true and if, by the amendment now sought for, he is trying to base his suit on the alleged original cause of action then also the amendment is required to be refused for the reason that by permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint in such a fashion we will be depriving the defendant of a legal right accrued to him by lapse of time. In this connection we may note certain observations of the Supreme court in Reserve Bank of India vs. Ramakrishna Govind (1 ). In that case in a second appeal pending before the High Court of bombay, that court had remanded the case to the trial court to reconsider the amend ment applications filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of his plaint and to dispose of the suit afresh. It may be noted that the trial court has rejected the amen lment sought for by the plaintiff on the ground that the proposed amendment was unnecessary. Challenging this order of remand by the High Court the above appeal had been preferred. With reference to the direction of the High Court to the trial court to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and disagreeing with the same the Supreme Court observes (at para-2) as follows :-" The High Court however did not try to find out if the proposed amedments were really necessary for the plaintiff's case. If the applications for amedment by the plaintiff contained allegations in line with what was stated in the original plaint. If the applications for amedment by the plaintiff contained allegations in line with what was stated in the original plaint. the amendments would be redudant; if they were different no valid reason is given why the plaintiff should be permitted to improve on the case as originally made. The plaintiff's case did not depend on what the defendant might say in the written statement and if what he proposed to introduce in the plaint by way of amendment was relevant to his case, there is no apparent reason why this was left out when the plaint was filed. Prima facie, therefore, the order of the trial court rejecting the plaintiff's applications for amendment of the plaint was arbitrary. ( 9 ) BUT then the learned Counsel for respondent argues that his client only wanted some clarity in his pleading and amendment sought was only to clear the possible confusion that might arise while understanding his plea, re: the cause of action. In this connection he relies on the following observations of the Supreme Court in Ganesh trading Co. V. S Moji Ram (2):-"it is true that, if a plaintiff seeks to alter the cause of action itself and to introduce indirectly through an amendment of his pleadings an entirely new or inconsistent cause of action,amounting virtually to the substitution of a new plaint or a new cause of action in place of what was originally there, the Court will refuse to permit it, if it amounts to depriving the party against which a suit is pending of any right which may have accrued in its favour due to lapse of time. But, mere failure to set out even an essential fact does not, by itself, constitute a new cause of action. A cause of action is constituted by the whole bundle of essential facts which the plantiff must prove before he can succeed in his suit. It must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. If any essential fact is lacking from the averments in the plaint, the cause of action will be defective. A cause of action is constituted by the whole bundle of essential facts which the plantiff must prove before he can succeed in his suit. It must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. If any essential fact is lacking from the averments in the plaint, the cause of action will be defective. In that case an attempt to supply the omission has been and could sometimes be viewed as equivalent to an introduction of a new cause of actron which, cured of its shortcomings has really become a good cause of action, this however, is not the only possible interpretation to be put on every defective state of pleadings. Defective pleadings are generally curable if the cause of action sought to be brought out was not abinitio completly absent. Even very defective pleadings may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause action where there was none, provided necessary conditons such as payment of either any additional court fees which may be payable or, of costs of the other side are complied with. It is only if lapse of "time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the courts should, ordinarily, refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings. " (Para-5)THE learned Counsel for the respondent pointedly drew my attention to this particular passage that "defective pleadings are generally curable if the cause of action sought to be brought out was not abinitio completely absent". But, from what has been stated by the court just a few sentences above the sentence now extracted, we can gauge what the Court means by defective cause of action in this context and how it may possibly be cured. It is observed that a cause of action would be a defective one if any essential fact is lacking from the averments made in the plaint and an amendment to supply that omission may be permissible under certain circumstances. In the instant case no such omission, as is referred by the Supreme court is sought to be suppllied. On the other hand, what is already there in the plaint is sought to be deleted and this only to place himself (the plaintiff) in an advantageous position re : his possible plea that he had based his suit on the original cause of action. On the other hand, what is already there in the plaint is sought to be deleted and this only to place himself (the plaintiff) in an advantageous position re : his possible plea that he had based his suit on the original cause of action. No amendment of pleadings of such a nature with such a purpose can be permitted. To state anything more than this on the state of pleadings may not be fair since that may prejudice the merits of the contentions of the parties. The court below will have to examine the pleadings carefully in the light of the evidence that the parties may lead and will have to take a decison on the merits of the plaintiff's claim. But, at any rate, in the circumstances of the case, the learned civil Judge has not properly exercised his discretion in allowing the I. A. in question. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of the court below is hereby set aside. I. A. No. 4 filed before the Civil Judge is dismissed, No. costs. --- *** --- .