JUDGMENT (M.R. Verma J.): The plaintiff has filed this application for amendment of the plaint by adding one new para to be numbered as para 1 -A and making further additions to para 6 of the plaint. In proposed para 1-A to be added in the plaint the averments regarding constitution/formation of the plaintiff, its activities and the persons competent to sue on behalf of the plaintiff Federation as per its bye-laws have been made. Thus, it-is sought to be added by way of amendment of the plaint that the Managing Director of the plaintiff is competent to sue on its behalf. By the proposed additions in para 6 of the plaint it is sought to be clarified as to how and why this Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. The defendant has contested this application on the grounds that, (i) by the proposed amendments the plaintiff seeks to practically change the whole plaint which will change the nature of the plaintiffs case, (ii) no cause has been shown for not incorporating the pleas now sought to be introduced in the plaint by way of amendment of plaint, (iii) the original plaint is so defective that it cannot be curd by amendment, (iv) the amendments are not necessary to adjudicate the controversy between the parties, (v) claim of the plaintiff by now had become time barred; and (vi) in case the amendments as prayed for are allowed that will cause serious prejudice to the defendant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant records. 4. A perusal of the plaint as a whole discloses that the plaintiff has sued for recovery of an amount due to it from the defendant on the basis of bills about the price of wool of different kinds supplied by it to the defendant on different dates. As the memo of parties disclose, the plaintiff has sued through its Managing Director who has as such signed and verified the plaint. There is no averment in the body of the plaint that such Managing Director has the authority and is competent to sue on behalf of the plaintiff. It is to supply this commission that para 1-A is sought to be added in the plaint by way of amendment. There is no averment in the body of the plaint that such Managing Director has the authority and is competent to sue on behalf of the plaintiff. It is to supply this commission that para 1-A is sought to be added in the plaint by way of amendment. This part of the proposed amendment is thus not going to change the nature of the suit or cause of action but is merely clarificatory. 5. In para 6 of the plaint it has been claimed, that plaintiff has its Head Office and carries out its business activities from Shimla, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. Evidently the contents of the existing para 6 of the plaint does not bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court. By the proposed amendment of this para the facts which will disclose that this Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit are sought to be added therein. The addition sought to be made are to the effect that the transactions about supply of wool by the plaintiff to the defendant were entered into between the parties at Shimla and the most of the wool was lifted by the defendant from Himachal Pradesh. At this stage it cannot be examined whether the addition sought to be made by this part of the proposed amendment is true or not. The proposed amendment however does not change the nature of (he suit in any manner, rather it clarifies as to how and why this court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. As seen hereinabove the proposed amendments are merely classificatory and do not introduce a new case or new cause of action or a new relief. 6. It has been averred in the application that the facts now sought to be added the plaint by the proposed amendments could not be earlier averred in the plaint due to inadvertence. The omissions now sought to be supplied by the proposed amendments could be the result of inadvertent mistake committed by the counsel while drafting the plaint. The mistake committed by the counsel with regard to a lapse as in-hand in no way should result in refusal to amend the plaint. 7. The proposed amendments if allowed are not going to cause any prejudice to the defendants so far as the merits of the case are concerned. 8. The mistake committed by the counsel with regard to a lapse as in-hand in no way should result in refusal to amend the plaint. 7. The proposed amendments if allowed are not going to cause any prejudice to the defendants so far as the merits of the case are concerned. 8. Since the claim is sought to be added by the proposed amendments therefore the objection that claim has by now become time barred is of no use and consequence. 9. The formal defects sought to be rectified by the proposed amendments are of the nature which can be rectified by the proposed clarificatory amendments and the proposed amendments are necessary for the determination of the controversy between the parties and in the interest of justice. 10. Be it stated that to support the objections against the proposed amendments, the learned counsel for the defendant has relied on T.L. Muddu Krishana & another v. Lalitha Ram Chandra Rao, 1997(2) SCC 611, Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh & others, 1997(7) SCC 486), Muni Lal v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Constructions Ltd & another, 1996(1) SCC 90) and K.Raheja Constructions Ltd. and another v. Alliance Ministries and others, 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 17). However, the facts of the present case as also the proposed amendments of clarificatory nature are quite distinguishable from the facts and nature of amendments sought for in the aforesaid cases. Therefore, the ratio in these cases has no application to the present application. 11. In view of the above conclusions, this application is allowed and the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint as proposed subject to costs of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant within 15 days. OMP No. 292/99: In view of the orders passed in OMP No. 81/2000 here-in-above, this application is dismissed. Application Dismissed