M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The respondents/defendants have been served with notice of this revision petition, but they are not represented. ( 2 ) IN this revision petition the revision petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order, dated 15-9-1994 passed in O. S. No. 500 of 1989 by the Principal Munsiff, Chitradurga, rejecting LA. No. II filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC by the plaintiff. ( 3 ) ORIGINALLY, the suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants with respect to the crop loan as well as the plantation loan. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the coconut plantation loan which had not become due on the date of the filing of the suit was deleted from the suit on the ground that it was premature. Consequently the plaint was amended. ( 4 ) AFTER the plaint was amended the suit continued and has been continuing. During the continuation of the suit, the coconut plantation loan has since become due. In respect of this coconut plantation loan the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint and include the claim in the suit which has been pending in respect of crop loan. This is the sum and substance of the amendment prayed for in I. A. No. II though the actual amendment prayed for is exasperatingly lengthy. ( 5 ) THE learned Munsiff allowed the earlier application filed by the plaintiff to delete the plantation loan since it had not become due on the date when the suit in respect of the crop loan was filed. Now when the plantation loan has become due, the learned Munsiff has rejected the prayer for amendment of the plaint to include the plantation loan due to plaintiff by the defendants on the ground that amendment, if allowed, will result in misjoinder of causes of action and that defendants will be prejudiced. ( 6 ) UNDOUBTEDLY the causes of action for the crop loan in respect of which the suit has been pending is different from the causes of action in respect of the coconut plantation loan which has since become due and which the plaintiff wants to include through the amendment. ( 6 ) UNDOUBTEDLY the causes of action for the crop loan in respect of which the suit has been pending is different from the causes of action in respect of the coconut plantation loan which has since become due and which the plaintiff wants to include through the amendment. ( 7 ) ORDER 2, Rule 3, CPC, insofar as it is relevant for our present purpose, says that the plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendants jointly. In view of this clear provision of law the learned Munsiff was wrong in rejecting the plaintiffs prayer for amendment. ( 8 ) SINCE Order 2, Rule 3 begins with the words "save as otherwise provided", I have satisfied myself that the provisions of Rules 4 and 5 of Order 2, CPC do not come in the way of the amendment prayed for by the plaintiff. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. LA. No. II filed by the plaintiff stands allowed. The learned Munsiff shall permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and then give opportunity to the defendants to file their additional written statement. --- *** --- .