R. P. SETHI, C. J. ( 1 ) J. B. Thammiah, the Trial Court rejected the prayer of plaintiff/petitioner for amendment of his plaint for incorporation of plea of independent transaction of payment of money in addition to what he had already pleaded preferring his claim on the basis of a promissory note. It appears that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the import of the judgment wherein it was specifically held that there cannot be any inflexible Rule as to whether in suits on insufficiently stamped promissory notes, plaintiffs should, or should not, be permitted to amend the plaint so as to base the suit on the original cause of action. The consideration of such plea depended entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- on basis of a demand promissory note stated to have been executed by the defendant. During the course of evidence when the plaintiff/petitioner wanted to mark the promissory note, the same was object to by the defendant on the ground of its being insufficiently stamped. The Court did not permit the promissory note to be exhibited vide its order dated 15-6-1992. Apparently to overcome the objections raised by the other side, the petitioner herein filed I. A. VI under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code praying for amend of plaint, by adding two sentences at para 2. He prayed that after the words, "the plaintiff therefore paid Rs. 15,000/- to defendant-1 as a hand-loan on 12-1-1985 at Gadag", the following words be permitted to be written "to evidence the said payment". Similarly at the end of para-2 the plaintiff wanted to add the words "on the original consideration". The prayer was resisted mainly on the ground of limitation. ( 2 ) THE purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guideline laid down by various High Courts and the Hon'ble supreme Court of India. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guideline laid down by various High Courts and the Hon'ble supreme Court of India. ( 3 ) IN A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v Damodar Valley Corporation, it was held:"the general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v Neale. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation: see Charan Das v Amir Khan and L. J. Leach and company Limited and Another v Jardine Skinner and company. The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v Smith) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended in Kisandas rupchand v Rachappa Vithoba, approved in Pirgonda hongonda Patil v Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil. The expression "cause of action" in the present context does not mean "every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed" as was said in Cooke v gill, in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v Unicos property Corporation Limited, and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v Unicos property Corporation Limited, and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words "new case" have been understood to mean"new set of ideas": Dornan v J. W. Ellis and Company limited. This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time". ( 4 ) IN Smt. Ganga Bai v Vijay Kumar and Others, it was held:"the power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court". ( 5 ) IN M/s. Ganesh Trading Company v Moji Ram, it was held:"it is clear from the foregoing summary of the main rules of pleadings and provisions for the amendment of pleadings, subject to such terms as to costs and giving of all parties concerned necessary opportunities to meet exact situations resulting from amendments, are intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. Even if a party or its Counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the short coming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense caused to the other side from its omissions. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued. It is true that, if a plaintiff seeks to alter the cause of action itself and to introduce indirectly, through an amendment of his pleadings, an entirely new or inconsistent cause of action, amounting virtually to the substitution of a new plaint or a new cause of action in place of what was originally there, the Court will refuse to permit it if it amounts to depriving the party against which a suit is pending of any right which may have accrued in its favour due to lapse of time. But, mere failure to set out even an essential fact does not, by itself, constitute a new cause of action. A cause of action is constituted by the whole bundle of essential facts which the plaintiff must prove before he can succeed in his suit. It must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. If any essential fact is lacking from averments in the plaint the cause of action will be defective. In that case, an attempt to supply the omission has been and could sometime be viewed as equivalent to an introduction of a new cause of action which, cured of its short comings, has really become a good cause of action. This, however, is not the only possible interpretation to be put on every defective state of pleadings. Defective pleadings are generally curable if the cause of action sought to be brought out was not ab initio completely absent. Even very defective pleadings may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided necessary conditions, such as payment of either any additional Court fees, which may be payable, or, of costs of the other side are complied with. It is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the Courts should, ordinarily, refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings". ( 6 ) VARIOUS High Courts and Apex Court in the country have dealt with the subject and indicated guidelines which are required to be kept in mind while dealing with the applications seeking amendment of the pleadings. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. ( 6 ) VARIOUS High Courts and Apex Court in the country have dealt with the subject and indicated guidelines which are required to be kept in mind while dealing with the applications seeking amendment of the pleadings. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be adopted particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. The circumstance may differ from case to case and the facts of each individual case have to be made basis for deciding the prayer for the amendment of the pleas. In view of various pronouncements made by the Courts in the country it is almost settled that the following principles should be kept in mind while dealing with the prayer for amendment:" (I) all amendments should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit; (II) the proposed amendment should not alter and be a substitute of the cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised; (III) inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts would not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment; (IV) proposed amendments should not cause prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by means of costs; (V) amendment of a claim or relief barred by time should not be allowed; (VI) no amendment should be allowed which amounts to or results in defeating a legal right accrued to the opposite party on account of lapse of time; (VII) no party should suffer on account of the technicalities of law and the amendments should be allowed to minimize the litigation between the parties; (VIII) the delay in filing the petitions for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs; (IX) error or mistake which if not fraudulent should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendments of pleadings". ( 7 ) APPLYING the aforesaid tests in the instant case it cannot be said that the plaintiff-petitioner was not entitled to amend the plaint which was intended only to meet an objection raised by the defendant (respondent) during the examination of witnesses. ( 7 ) APPLYING the aforesaid tests in the instant case it cannot be said that the plaintiff-petitioner was not entitled to amend the plaint which was intended only to meet an objection raised by the defendant (respondent) during the examination of witnesses. It was not intended to bring out a new case or deprive the defendant of any alleged right which he could have claimed to have accrued during the pendency of the lis. Technicalities of law could not hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. The proposed amendment did not amount to or result in defeating any such right of the defendants. The proposed amendment cannot be termed to be substitute of a new cause of action as appears to have been presumed by the lower court. Error or mistake noted by the Court should not have been made a basis for rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint particularly when such an error or mistake was not termed to be fraudulent. The amendment of the plaint in the instant case would have served the interests of justice and minimise the litigation resulting in the proper adjudication of the rights between the parties arising out of and in connection with a loan transaction. ( 8 ) UNDER the circumstances the revision petition is accepted by setting aside the order impugned. The application of the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. ( 9 ) BY setting aside the order impugned. The application of the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. --- *** --- .