Judgment 1. The present revision application is directed against an order dated 21.7.92, passed by the subordinate Judge-l, begusarai in Title Suit no.172/84 whereby and whereunder the prayer for amendment of the plaint, made on behalf of the plaintiff has been rejected. The suit is for partition. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff-petitioner has sought a declaration that the deed of Gift executed by their mother in the year 1980-81 was bad in law, in as much as, not binding on them, because the property being a joint property, the female did not have any right to execute the said Deed. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Suit for partition of the suit land and carving out the 7/64th share in the suit property. According to the petitioner, his case in the court below was that defendant no.1, who used to manage the joint family properties, is in actual know of the details of the joint family properties and accordingly, sought leave of the court to furnish the details if and when it would come to his knowledge. It was further stated in the plaint that after the death of his father his mother lost her sense and defendant no.1 might got some statements made through his mother against the interest of the petitioner, about which the petitioner did not know and are not binding on him. 3. Defendant no.1 filed his written statement and denied the existence of any joint nucleous and asserted that the partition had already taken place in the year 1976, in which his mother was also given possession of her share. It was also stated that on 4.11.80 and 15.9.81 his mother executed a deed of gift in his favour with respect to 1 Bigha 5 Kathas 16 Dhura and 5 Bighas 2 Kathas 11 Dhurs land and since thereafter he has been coming in peaceful possession. 4. According to the petitioner, in paragraph 21 the defendant no.1 stated, that in fact, the petitioner really assailed the two deeds of Gift, the value of which is Rs.1,00,000/- and court fee on that amount has to be paid by the plaintiff. In order to specify his apprehension, the petitioner filed a petition on 10.7.91 to amend the plaint, in which the aforementioned alleged two deeds of gift executed by Mosmt. In order to specify his apprehension, the petitioner filed a petition on 10.7.91 to amend the plaint, in which the aforementioned alleged two deeds of gift executed by Mosmt. Panchwati Kuer was sought to be challenged as being forged, fabricated, showy and in-operative as she had no right to execute deeds of gift in respect of the joint properties. The petitioner also sought for amendment of the relief in that respect. 5. Defendant no.1 filed re-joinder and proposed amendment on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The court by the impugned order rejected the prayer for amendment as barred by limitation as also, according to him, it would change the nature of the suit. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below committed error of record in holding that the amendment was barred by limitation. In fact, the amendment was nothing but a specification of the aforementioned statements made in paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the plaint. 6. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the defendant opposite parties, in which it is stated that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff would change the entire nature of the suit and valuable right which accrued to the defendants will be taken away by the plaintiff. Further, it is contended that almost all the witnesses in the court were examined and only son 3 rent receipts are to be exhibited from his side. At this stage, by the proposed amendment the plaintiff, in fact, sought to fill up the entire lacunae after the defence was disclosed by the defendants. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time when the petition for amendment was filed the suit was at initial stage and the evidence of the parties had not begun, Further, he contended that by the proposed amendment the plaintiff only wanted to specify the said statement and there is no question of changing the nature of the suit or defeating the defence inasmuch as, after the amendment is allowed the defendants will get an opportunity of filing additional written statement. Thus, according to the learned counsel, in order to avoid any multiplicity of litigation and settle the question involved once for ever the plaintiff was entitled to amend the plaint as was prayed. 8. Mr. Thus, according to the learned counsel, in order to avoid any multiplicity of litigation and settle the question involved once for ever the plaintiff was entitled to amend the plaint as was prayed. 8. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submitted that evidence of the plaintiff had closed and almost all witnesses on behalf of the defendants had also been examined in the court when the petition for amendment was filed. According to him, by now the evidence of both the parties have closed and the argument could not proceed only because of the interim order of this court. It was also submitted by him that the amendment, in fact, would change the nature of the suit and thus, the prayer for amendment has been rightly rejected by the lower court. 9. Further, he submitted that the petition for amendment was barred by limitation even if the limitation is counted from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff about the aforementioned Deeds of Gift which he got in the year 1985 when the written statement was filed and the limitation for filing of the suit assailing the validity of the Deeds of gift is three years. According to him, amendment of pleadings introducing new case cannot be allowed and a suit on new cause of action is barred. In support of this he placed reliance on a decision of the supreme Court in the case of A. K. Gupta and Sons vs. Damodar Valley Corporation ( AIR 1967 SC 96 ). 10. It appears that the court below has rejected the prayer of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that the amendment was barred by limitation. The present revision application was filed as long back as on 27.8.92 and the notices were issued to the opposite parties vide order dated 1.10.92 with the direction that during the pendency of the application the court below might proceed, but no judgment should be delivered. However, from the entire order sheet it appears that the opposite parties evaded the senvice of notice and ultimately, the petitioner had to take steps for substituted service, which was allowed by order dated 27.9.95. 11. However, from the entire order sheet it appears that the opposite parties evaded the senvice of notice and ultimately, the petitioner had to take steps for substituted service, which was allowed by order dated 27.9.95. 11. However, without going into the controversy as regards the stage of the trial of the partition suit, in which undispitedly the evidence had not closed when this revision application was filed, but due to dlatory tactics adopted by defendants-op-posite parties by evading service of notice, resulted in the closure of the evidence in the court below, in my opinion, even closure of evidence, as alleged by Mr. Thakur, in the facts and circumstances, can not come in the way of granting the relief to the petitioner, if found entitled. 12. It is true that according to the supreme Court decision in the case of A. K. Gupta and Sons (supra) the general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or new cause of action particularly when a suit on new cause of action is barred. But in the said decision their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that 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 will be allowed even after the expiry of statutory period of limitation. In the instant case the opposite parties have not denied the case of the petitioner in the court below as stated in paragraph 2 above. The petitioner had expressed apprehension about some manipulation by defendant no.1 through his mother against the interest of the petitioner after the death of his father. He also stated that he did not know about the said manipulation. Later, when in the written statement it was stated by the defendant opposite Parties that the mother had executed two Deeds of gift in favour of the defendants his apprehension became true and he filed the amendment petition seeking the proposed amendment as an additional approach to the same facts. Thus, in my opinion, the learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the proposed amendment was nothing but a specification of the aforementioned statements made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint. 13. Thus, in my opinion, the learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the proposed amendment was nothing but a specification of the aforementioned statements made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint. 13. According to the decision of the supreme Court in the case of A. K. Gupta and Sons (supra) in a case of different OT additional approach to the same facts the amendment has to be allowed even after expiry of statutory period of limitation. Moreover, I do not feel convinced by the submission of Mr. Thakur that the nature of the suit will also change by the proposed amendment. The validity of the Deeds of gift will have direct bearing over the issue in the partition suit inasmuch as only in case denial of the existence of any joint nucleous and/or that the partition had already taken place in the year 1975, as claimed by the defendants is accepted, the aforementioned Deeds of Gift cannot deny the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner for partition of the properties involved in the said deeds of Gift. 14. Thus, having considered the entire aspect of the matter, as also to avoid any multiplicity of litigation, in my opinion, in the ends of justice, the prayer for amendment of the plaint made on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner should be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.7.1992 is set aside and the prayer for amendment of the plaint made by the plaintiff-petitioner in the court below is allowed subject to the condition that the defendants-opposite parties will be entitled to file additional written statement. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.