H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 7-1-1994 allowing the plaintiffs application for amendment subject to costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that original suit was for partition filed by the plaintiff-respondent, and in the suit, application for amendment was made seeking to challenge the Will dated 8-4-1972 which is alleged to have been executed in favour of the revisionist i. e. , defendant in the suit. Learned counsel contended that the suit was for partition and for amendment of the plaint and allowing of application for amendment would change the nature of the suit and it amounts to introducing a new case. Learned counsel contended that the learned Court below acted illegally in allowing the application for amendment, as it is well-settled principle of law that no amendment is to be allowed if it results in changing the nature of the suit and if it has the effect of introducing a new case. ( 2 ) THESE contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist-applicant has been hotly contested by Sri S. G. Hegde, learned Counsel for the opposite party in Civil Revision Petition No. 1590 of 1994. Sri S. G. Hegde contended that in a suit for partition, defendant-revisionist has taken a plea claiming the property in dispute to exclusively belong to the defendant-revisionist on the basis of Will dated 8-4-1972. This aspect of the matter, learned Counsel contended, no doubt there is by way of plea making claim that the revisionist was the sole owner on the basis of Will dated 8-4-1972. ( 3 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsels for the parties. It appears when defendant is claiming exclusive right to the property on the basis of alleged Will dated 8-4-1972 alleged to have been executed by the father of the parties, burden did lie on the defendant to prove that Will was really executed by the father with full understanding of his own free Will as well as to remove all suspicious circumstances etc. Secondly, if defendant fails to prove, definitely the will has to be held to be bogus. Secondly, if defendant fails to prove, definitely the will has to be held to be bogus. Examining in this context, I find when the Will has been set up by the defendant in his written statement, plaintiff as a matter of fact has been entitled to approach to the facts of the case subsequently brought on record to make an additional approach to the facts coming out of pleadings of defence and to raise that plea. It cannot be said to be making out a new case. There is no dispute so far as mere proposition of law is concerned which is well-settled and laid down in very many cases including the case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others , that,"all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions- (a) not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. It is merely a particular case of this general rule that where a plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, the amendment must be refused; to allow it would be to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by depriving him of a good defence to the claim". The basic principle of law on which the learned Counsel emphasised is that the amendment introducing a new case should not be allowed and he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay v Lola Pancham and Others. No doubt, amendment introducing a new case and particularly when it becomes barred by time, it may not be allowed. But what is the meaning of a "new case" of "new cause of action"? This aspect has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Gupta and sons Limited v Damodar Valley Corporation. No doubt, amendment introducing a new case and particularly when it becomes barred by time, it may not be allowed. But what is the meaning of a "new case" of "new cause of action"? This aspect has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Gupta and sons Limited v Damodar Valley Corporation. Their Lordships observed as under:"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 v jardine Skinner and Company". (para 7) in Paragraph 9, their Lordships observed, "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. 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 ) THUS considered, an additional approach to the facts of the case may be made. 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 ) THUS considered, an additional approach to the facts of the case may be made. If facts are there and pleaded by either of the parties in some form or other and then an additional approach can be made to those facts, then it cannot be said to amount to introducing a new case. Testing on the yard stick that whether a new case has been made out, I find that there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist in Revision No. 1590 of 1994. That when the suit for partition has been filed, defendant pleaded that he is the exclusive owner of the property as he inherited the property by under Will dated 8-4-1972 and relied on that. It is well-settled that a person relying on the Will has to prove its execution in accordance with law and has to remove the suspicion about the circumstances, if any, surrounding the execution of the Will. If he fails to prove, then the document produced by him should be taken to be bogus and not binding. When this is the position, when I look to the application for amendment that the plaintiff wanted to add that the Will set up by the defendant is not binding and is a bogus one, in my opinion, it cannot be said to be making out a new case which may be said really going to cause injury or substantial injustice to the revisionist. ( 5 ) THUS considered in my opinion, the amendment cannot be said to be introducing a new case. Secondly, as the suit is for partition, the amendment is to be allowed which is necessary for the complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties and as such for the complete adjudication of the case. So, in my opinion, the amendment which has been allowed cannot be said to cause any irrepairable loss or irrepairable injury to the defendant. The order allowing the amendment appears to be perfectly justified as it has been allowed on payment of cost. As such, Revision Petition No. 1590 of 1994 is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .