S. B. WAD ( 1 ) THIS is a Revision Petition filed by the plaintiff in regular Suit No. 15/80 against the order of Shri R. C. Jain, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 4-6-1983. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge had rejected the application for the amendment of the plaint on the ground that the application was made mala fide to bring the suit within time. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a cargo agent. Defendant No. 1 is the firm, defendant No. 2 is its proprietor and defendant No. 3 is the sub-agent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff books cargo on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2. The claim in the suit is for the freight amounts and the service charges incurred by the plaintiff from time to time on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2. The claim in the suit is for Rs. 84,139. 20 p. In the original plaint para 15 reads as follows : "that the payment on account for the last time was made for a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 on 26th September, 1977. The said payment being in the hands of the defendants extend the period of limitation. The suit of the plaintiff in any case is well within the period of limitation. "by means of the amendment the plaintiff wanted to add a new paragraph as under : "that the payment on account was made by the defendant on 3-11-1976 amounting to Rs. 8,000. 00. Thereafter the defendant made a payment by cheque on 1-1-1977, amounting to Rs. 7,000. 00. The defendant made the payment for the last time on 26-9-1977, amounting to Rs. 5,212. 75. These payments being in the hands of the defendant, extend the period of limitation. The payments, whenever made by the defendant, were duly adjusted towards the debits first in point of time, so that the amount now due is out of the last debit constituting the amount due. The suit of the plaintiff, in any case, is well within the period of limitation. " ( 3 ) THE plaintiff submitted that when the defendant No. 1, who was the only defendant in the beginning, filed his written statement he denied that a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 was paid on 26-9-1977. That made the plaintiff to look up the accounts more carefully when he found that the said amount of Rs. " ( 3 ) THE plaintiff submitted that when the defendant No. 1, who was the only defendant in the beginning, filed his written statement he denied that a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 was paid on 26-9-1977. That made the plaintiff to look up the accounts more carefully when he found that the said amount of Rs. 8,000. 00 was actually paid on 3-11-1976. Subsequently, on 1-1-1977 a sum of Rs. 7,0007- was paid and the last payment of Rs. 5212. 75 was made on 26-9-1977. This is the purport of the amendment that is sought. ( 4 ) THE amendment was sought at a very early stage of the suit. Even the issues were not framed by that time. Originally the trial court allowed the amendment and imposed a cost of Rs. 840. 00 Along with the application for the amendment he had filed the amended copy of the proposed plaint as required by the rules. The plaintiff did not pay the costs. Thereafter an application was made for adding the defendants 2 and 3 as party defendants. Along with the application the copy of the plaint was filed. According to the plaintiff, by mistake the said proposed plaint was filed. After the said fact was brought to the notice of the court, the Court deleted the said amended para 15 and directed the plaintiff and permitted him to file a separate application. That is how the present application has been filed. ( 5 ) THE learned Judge has found that the attempt to file a fresh application was mala fide and that it was intended to bring the suit in time. This is really difficult to understand as to how the application was mala fide. The reason being that the application was in fact allowed by the court. The plaintiff did not make the payment of the costs but that does not make the present application mala fide. So also there was no attempt to surreptitiously include the amended Para 15 in the plaint, as suggested by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. I find that a material irregularity is committed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in rejecting the application for amendment. The application for amendment is allowed but the plaintiff/petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 840. 00, as directed earlier by the trial court and an additional sum of Rs. 500. I find that a material irregularity is committed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in rejecting the application for amendment. The application for amendment is allowed but the plaintiff/petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 840. 00, as directed earlier by the trial court and an additional sum of Rs. 500. 00 within one month from today, towards costs. The Civil Revision is allowed. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 25-2-1985. The original records be returned to the trial court.