Judgment :- 1. The petitioner (plaintiff) alleged in his affidavit that he has filed the suit for rendition of true and correct accounts against the first respondent (first defendant) and for injunction restraining the first respondent from enforcing the Bank guarantee of Rupees one lakh given by the second respondent (second defendant). But, now he has found it necessary to make some amendments in the plaint. He stated that he being an illiterate petrson not knowing the details of the records maintained by the first respondent which are within the exclusive knowledge of the first respondent and that he has come to know that he is entitled to an ascertained sum of Rs. 1,43,078.60 only after filing of the written statement by the first respondent. He stated that thereafter, he has filed a reply statment mentioning that he is entitled to the said sum and found it not necessary to ask for rendition of accounts. In the circumstances, he sought amendment in respect of the value of the relief for purpose of court-fees an d jurisdiction mentioning as Rs 1,43,078-60 and offering to pay the court fees of Rs. 4,95600. and necessary court fee for injunction. He also prayed that his prayer for rendition of accounts mentioned in paragraph 13 (a) of the plaint and amend the same as “to direct the first respondent to pay Rs. 1,43,078-60 to the petitioner (plaintiff) with interest at 12 per cent”. The petitionar stated that by the amendment of the plaint as mentioned above, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents arid that there is also no change of the character of the suit or the cause of action. 2. The first respondent/first defendant opposed the amendment and contended that the petitioner was a hulling agent of the first respondent (principal), that he is not entitled to ask for rendition of accounts and to maintain the suit and that the amendment sought to be made in the plaint is belated and changes the character of the suit and cause of action, besides being barred by of limitation. The first respondent therefore stated that the proposed amendment should not be allowed. 3. No counter was filed by the second respondent. 4. The point for determinartion is whether there are grounds to allow the amendment prayed for by the petitioner. 5. The first respondent therefore stated that the proposed amendment should not be allowed. 3. No counter was filed by the second respondent. 4. The point for determinartion is whether there are grounds to allow the amendment prayed for by the petitioner. 5. It is common ground that the plaintiff was appointed as a hulling agent of the first defendant and that the first defendant is in the position of a principal. It is not in dispute that there was an agreement by which the plaintif was entrusted with paddy by the first defendant for conversion into rice and delivery of the same to the first defendant and that the plaintiff is entitled to the hulling charges. The allegation of the plaintiff is that during the period when he was functioning as a nulling agent, the first defendant had made a claim against the plaintiff by adding some five items of paddy for comming to the quantity (45.225 metric tonne) when in fact the plaintiff was not liable for the same. The cost of these items is said to be more than Rs. 50.000/- and the hulling charge is said to be Rs. 30,000/The plaintiff would allage that he has already made good Rs. 50,000/though he was not liable to do so and that if the disputed sum of Rs. 50,000/-is deducted from out of the Bank guarantee of rupees one lakh given by the plaintiff from the second defendant, it will come to Rs. 50,000/and that he is entitled to get this amount with the hulling charges of Rs. 30,000/-. Accordingly, he has valued the claim at Rs. 80,000/and paid court fees thereon, of course, asking the first defendant to render true and proper account in respect of that claim. He has also prayed for injunction restraining the first defendant from enforcing the Bank guarantee of Rupees one lakh given by the plaintiff from the second defendant. 6. First of all, we have to say that the objection raised on behalf of the first defendant as regards the frame of the suit is not sustainable. The plaintiff as a hulling agent of the first defendant (principal) can maintain the suit for rendition of accounts against the first respondent in certain exceptional circumstances. 6. First of all, we have to say that the objection raised on behalf of the first defendant as regards the frame of the suit is not sustainable. The plaintiff as a hulling agent of the first defendant (principal) can maintain the suit for rendition of accounts against the first respondent in certain exceptional circumstances. In Narandas Mohandas Gajjwala v. S.P.A.M. Papammal and another 1 it has been observed all follows: “Though an agent has no statutory right for an account from his principal, nevertheless there may be special circumstances rendering it equitable that the principal should account to the agent. Such a case may arise where all the accounts are in possession of the principal and the agent does not possess accounts to enable him to determine his claim for commission against his prncipal. The right of the agent may also arise in al exceptional circumstance when his remuneration depends on the extent of dealings which are not known to him or where he cannot be aware of the extent of the amount due to him unless the accounts of his principal are gone into.” In the present case, the plaintiff has averred in paragraph 10 of the plaint that “since the entire records are available only with the first defendant-Corporation and that they have got to prepare the accounts, the Plaintiff is constrained to file this suit calling upon the first defendant to render a true and correct account with reference to the moneys payable by the first defendant-Corporation to the plaintiff. He has added therein that “the plaintiff will be found due a minimum of Rs. 80,000/and unless all the facts and figures which are in the exclusive custody of the Corporation are placed before the Honourable Court the exact amount cannot be arrived at”. Whether this version of the plaintiff is true or not, will have to be known during the trial of the suit. As it is, the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit for rendition of accounts against the first defen-. dant.- 7. No doubt, the plaintiff has sought the amendment of the relief of rendition of accounts into one for a decree for a specific sum of Rs. 1,43,078-60 by offering to pay the necessary court fees. As it is, the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit for rendition of accounts against the first defen-. dant.- 7. No doubt, the plaintiff has sought the amendment of the relief of rendition of accounts into one for a decree for a specific sum of Rs. 1,43,078-60 by offering to pay the necessary court fees. The explanation of the plaintiff is that after the filing of the written statement by the first defendant, he had come to know that this is the amount due to him from the first defendant and that therefore he has come forward with a prayer for a decree for a specific amount. According to him, the details could be gathered by him only from the written statement filed by the first defendant. Though this is opposed on behalf of the first defendant, it clearly appears to me that this amendment may be allowed. 8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff citted a number of authorities of the Supreme Court and of the Madras High Court to support his contention that this amendment may be allowed and it will suffice if we refer to some of them. In Pirgonea Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil 2 the principle stated is where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts merely to a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment is to be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. In Jai Jai Ram Manoharial v. National Building Material Supply 3 it has been observed as follows: “A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide , or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide , or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side” In Haridas Alldas Thadant v. Gorej Rustoh Kermani 1 it has been held that the court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer of amendment of pleadings as the Court must be guided by the rules of justice. The case reported in Sobhanadri Appa Rao v. Venkataranayya Appa Rao 2 is on the point that the fact that an amendment seeks to state a case in the alternative with the case already set out in the plaint is not a ground for disallowing the amendment. In Mettu Bhimuda v. Duggirala Pitchayya 3 it has been held that in order to determine whether the amendment of the pleadings should be allowed, the statutory test is whether the alteration of the pleadings or the amendment thereof that is asked for is just or whether it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and that the party should not substitute one cause of action for another or change the subject matter of the suit. In Gadampettai Subbiah Setti v. Chaluvadi Ramayya Setti 4 it has been stated that if the amendment is necessary in the interest of justice to get an adjudication on all the issues in controversy or to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it should be granted, provrded it does not change the fundamental character of the suit. In Minor T. Thangavelu alias Subramanian v. S. Vadamalai Mudaliar 5 it has been held that the amendment can be allowed to substitute the relief. In D. Kannan v. Southern Roadways 6 it has been observed for rejecting an application for amendment of the pleadings. 9. Evidently we find in the present case that the plaintiff does not introduce any new fact in the plaint and he has left the facts originally mentioned to remain as they are. In D. Kannan v. Southern Roadways 6 it has been observed for rejecting an application for amendment of the pleadings. 9. Evidently we find in the present case that the plaintiff does not introduce any new fact in the plaint and he has left the facts originally mentioned to remain as they are. The only change that he seeks to make is with regard to the amount for which he seeks a decree. Instead of asking the first defendant to render accounts, he prays that the first defendant should pay Rs. 1,43,078-60. This does not amount to setting up a fresh claim or a new cause of action. As observed in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation 7 the plaintiff just wants to make a different approach to the prayer but on the same facts which remain unchanged in the plaint. The plaintiff would say that he became aware of the amount of Rs. 1,43,078-60 for which he is entitled only after seeing the written statement and that he was not in possession of the relevant accounts when he filed the suit. The amendment thus proposed by the plaintiff will certainly give room for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and help in rendering justice as quickly as possible. The question of bar of limitation also (sic) is raised by the plaintiff (sic) decree for a specified amount. We see the judgment in D. Kannan v. Southern Roadways 8 to say that the bar of limitation does not provide a ground for rejecting an application for amendment of pleadings. In the circumstances, I am convinced that the amendment sought to be made by the plaintiff may be allowed. 10. In the result, the application is allowed. No costs. The plaintiff is directed to pay the deficit court fees within a week and amend the plaint as prayed for.