A. P. MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage after serving the opposite parties. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The present revision is directed as against an order dated 19-2-1988 by which the trial Court has rejected the application of amendment in the plaint filed by the plaintiff-applicants. The plaintiffs-applicants moved an application before the trial Court for amendment in the plaint by virtue of which in the relief clause instead of defendants 2 to 6, defendants 1 to 6 were sought to be added. It was averred that it has occurred by typing error and instead of defendants 1 to 6, it has been typed as defendants 2 to 6. There is no other amendment sought. However, the court below rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision has been filed. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants urged that since the amendment seeking all the partners to give account is necessary, the amendment should be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently urged that from the amendment sought, the cause of action will change. Therefore, the amendment should not be granted. Learned counsel for the opposite parties urged that so far as accounting by defendant No. 1 is concerned, the amendment has become barred by time under Article 5 of the Limitation Act as more than three years have expired and hence the amendment should not have been granted. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance upon a case reported in (1910) 6 Ind Cas 63 (Cal ). Hazi Mohamad Akbar v. Dwarika Nath Sarkar. In this case since it is held that Rohim Bux took a prominent and active part in the management of the contract business, it is impossible, upon the record as it stands, to form any definite conclusion of the matter. It cannot be disputed, of course, that in so far as Rohim Bux may be proved to have taken part in the management, his representatives are liable to render an account. In the present case, as per plaint allegation, it was stated that one Sri Ram Narain was the accounting partner and hence no accounting could be asked for from other partners. In the present case, as per plaint allegation, it was stated that one Sri Ram Narain was the accounting partner and hence no accounting could be asked for from other partners. The aforesaid decision is only the decision that all the representatives of such a partner are bound to give accounts in a suit brought for dissolution of partnership. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, the earlier part of the judgement regarding the fact is to the following effect. "the right to call for an account upon the dissolution of a firm is mutual and each partner is entitled to an account from his co-partners of their partnership dealings and transactions, unless he had legally waived or parted with such right. " ( 6 ) THE aforesaid observations would go to show that every partner is liable for accounting. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties has urged that from the averments made in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the plaint only Sri Ram Narain is the accounting partner. The perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs does not show that the rights of accounting from other partners were waived. It is a matter of evidence on record. Prima facie by reading those paragraphs, it cannot be said either Ram Narain alone was the accounting partner or the right of accounting from other partners was waived. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties further relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1933 Sind 121, Pahloomal v. Paramanand. This was a suit filed only against one partner while, subsequently, after the period of limitation, the remaining partners were added. it is on this ground it is held that when a partner sues only one of his partners for accounts of partnership and the other partners are added after the period of limitation has elapsed, the suit must be dismissed. However, in the present case, the facts of the case are different. In the amendment sought for it is only prayed that instead of seeking accounts from defendants 2 to 6 only, defendants 1 to 6 be made. Here all the partners are already party to the suit right from very inception. Thus, the question of limitation does not arise. However, in the present case, the facts of the case are different. In the amendment sought for it is only prayed that instead of seeking accounts from defendants 2 to 6 only, defendants 1 to 6 be made. Here all the partners are already party to the suit right from very inception. Thus, the question of limitation does not arise. ( 9 ) EVEN under Article 5 of the Limitation Act, the limitation is prescribed as three years for a suit relating to an account and a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership. Here such suit was filed within time and all partners are parties as aforesaid. Only in relief, initial accounting was prayed against defendants 2 to 6 instead of defendants 1 to 6. The other relief was sought against all the partners. in fact, in the case of Hazi Mohamad Akbar ( (1910) 6 Ind Cas 63) (Cal) (supra), his Lordship held that the right to call for an account upon the dissolution of a firm is mutual and each partner is entitled to an account from his copartners of their partnership. In the present suit, the allegations have been made against all the partners. It cannot be said that on account of the amendment of the plaint, the cause of action will be changed. ( 10 ) THUS contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that by the amendment, the cause of action will be changed cannot be sustained. The contention is without foundation. In the present case, it is not disputed that the suit is for accounting. It is in the relief, instead of seeking relief against defendants 1 to 6, it is only sought against defendants 2 to 6. ( 11 ) THUS, the court below has committed error in rejecting the amendment application of the applicants. In view of legal position, the revision is allowed. The order dated 19-2-1988 is quashed. The court below shall pass fresh orders on the basis of the observations made above. Costs on parties. ( 12 ) SINCE the suit is an old one, I have no doubt that the trial court shall expedite the disposal of the same. Petition allowed. .