JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - This revision application is directed against two orders passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Bahraich, rejecting the application for amendment of the plaintiff as well as the application for filing additional documents in appeal. It seems that the plaintiff's suit was decreed and the defendants filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint by taking a plea of Section 19 of the Limitation Act with the allegations that the payments made by the defendants which were written on the plaintiff's bahis with defendant's signatures. The applications were opposed by the defendant-appellants. Similarly the plaintiff also moved an application for filing certain additional original documents which were private documents. The said application was also opposed by the defendants. 2. The learned Civil Judge, after rejecting the said application for filing the additional documents, took the application for amendment into consideration and was of the view that a valuable right had accrued to the defendants, and, as such, the amendment application could not be allowed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the revision itself has been heard with the consent of the parties. 3. Sri S.K. Kalia the learned counsel for the opposite parties has challenged the maintainability of the application on the ground that two orders have been challenged in one application. So far as the order of additional documents is concerned, the additional documents can be filed and accepted only if the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. are fulfilled. It was not the case of the applicant that the Court below has refused to admit that said documents were not in possession of the plaintiff or that the same were not in his knowledge and could not find out despite his due diligence. The applicant is not required to produce such documents by the Court to enable it to pronounce judgment, as such, the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 were not satisfied. In these circumstances the application for accepting the additional documents was rightly rejected. 4. The Court below rejected the amendment application mainly on a legal ground and made reference to two decided cases in this behalf. In these circumstances the application for accepting the additional documents was rightly rejected. 4. The Court below rejected the amendment application mainly on a legal ground and made reference to two decided cases in this behalf. By means of the said amendment the plaintiff wanted to take a legal plea based on alleged admission for establishing which enquiries in certain facts is necessary. The legal position regarding allowing of amendment of pleading is quite clear. As a matter of fact as far as possible, amendment should be allowed provided the other side is compensated by costs and the same are not belated and do not change the cause of action or are mala fide. The Court dealt with the matter very briefly and was of the view that it was rather a method to get over the order rejecting that application for additional documents. The Court below relying on law laid down by the Supreme Court reported in M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Mojee Ram 1978 (4) A.L.R. 42 (Summary), and Mahboob Khan v. Ayub Khan AIR 1978 All. p. 463, held that valuable rights had accrued in favour of the opposite party because of not taking of this plea earlier, the amendment could not be allowed. 5. In Mahboob Khan's case ( supra ) which was a suit for specific performance of the contract and in which no averments as to the readiness and willingness to perform the contract was made it was held that at that stage amendment could not be allowed as valuable right had accrued to the other party and the amendment seems to bring a cause of action in the plaint which was conspicuous by its absence in the plaint as originally filed. 6. In M/s. Ganesh Trading Company's case( supra ) the Supreme Court held that defective pleadings may be cured if the cause of action sought to bring out was not abinitio absent or even to constitute a cause of action where there was none. It was also held that the Court will refuse amendments only if it deprives the opposite party of any right accrued due to lapse of time or if lapse of time has barred the remedy. 7. It was also held that the Court will refuse amendments only if it deprives the opposite party of any right accrued due to lapse of time or if lapse of time has barred the remedy. 7. In the instant case the Court below though relied on these two cases, did not consider whether the amendment would introduce new cause of action or will entitle to any such exemption from question of limitation for which there was no jurisdiction whatsoever earlier on that the amendment would only result in curing defective pleadings. The Court below rather linked the application for amendment with the application for filing additional documents and disposed it of without taking into consideration the relevant matters in this behalf and thereby failed to exercise a juridiction vested in it in deciding it in accordance with law. As such the revision application is allowed and the order passed by the Court below rejecting the amendment application is set aside and the Court below is directed to consider it afresh in accordance with law and proceed with the trial of the case. No order as to costs.