Judgment :- This is an application filed by the plaintiffs/applicants praying for the amendment of the cause title in the suit by amending the name of the defendant, which is "Maharaja Whiteline" by substituting with "Asiatic Engineers Private Limited". The applicants have instituted the suit for the relief of passing off, marketing or offering for sale or advertisement of their product "MAHARAJA WHITELINE" which is a flagrant copy of the applicants' design of table top wet grinder and for other reliefs. On the basis of the particulars given in the advertisements and relevant documents, the plaintiff/applicants impleaded M/s. Maharaja Whiteline as defendant in this suit. However, the applicants came to know through the counsel for the defendant by the letter dated 28-8-1999 that Maharaja Whiteline is only a trade mark whereas the corporate name of the defendant is Asiatic Engineers Private Limited. Hence, this application for amendment of cause title. The defendant/respondent filed a counter opposing such an amendment stating that the suit is not maintainable as against Maharaja Whiteline which is not a legal entity, which is only a trade mark used by the defendant-Company and as such, the amendment of the cause title sought for by the plaintiff cannot be allowed. Mr. Satish Parasaran, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr. Mohan, the learned counsel for the respondent have argued at length. The plaintiffs/applicants filed a suit in C.S. No. 494 of 1999 praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant (M/s. Maharaja Whiteline, New Delhi), their men, agents, etc. from in any way manufacturing or selling or offering for sale or marketing or advertising or otherwise dealing with their product Maharaja Whiteline Supra Table Top Wet Grinders and from passing off and selling their table top wet grinders with their existing design which is a flagrant copy of the plaintiffs registered designOn receipt of the notice issued by this Court, the learned counsel for the defendant filed a vakalat on behalf of the Executive Director of Asiatic Engineers Private Limited. The said vakalat was not taken on record on the ground that the suit had been filed against Maharaja Whiteline and not against the Asiatic Engineers Private Limited. The said vakalat was not taken on record on the ground that the suit had been filed against Maharaja Whiteline and not against the Asiatic Engineers Private Limited. Therefore, the learned counsel for the defendant sent a letter dated 28-8-1999 to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants intimating that, "Maharaja Whiteline is the trade mark used by their clients whereas, the corporate name of their clients is Asiatic Engineers Private Limited". and requesting the counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants to amend the cause title and intimate to them. On receipt of the above letter, the counsel for the applicants has filed this application in A. No. 4086 of 1999 to amend the cause title by amending the name of the defendant which is Maharaja Whiteline by substituting with Asiatic Engineers Private Limited. On going through the records and after having heard the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that showing the defendant's name as Maharaja Whiteline is purely a mistake and it shall be amended by substituting with Asiatic Engineers Private Limited to meet the ends of justice. It is settled law that this Court has got powers to amend the plaint so long as the proposed amendment does not alter the nature and character of the suit. Time and again, the Courts have laid down that a party cannot be refused relief merely because of some mistakes, negligence, inadvertence, or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is shown that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justiceIn the matter of allowing amendment of pleading the general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action when a suit on the new cause of action is barred. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justiceIn the matter of allowing amendment of pleading the general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action when a suit on the new cause of action is barred. Where, the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, the amendment is to be allowed. These principles have been laid down in Haridas Aildas v. Godraj Rustom, Natesan v. Govindaswami 1988 2 Mad LW 397, Radhakrishnan v. Auvudai Ammal, (1993 1 Mad LJ 375); A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, and Vellai Ammal v. Chinnammal, (1994 1 Mad LJ 98). Applying the above principles, it can be safely held that the facts of the present case would not reveal that by amendment, a new case or new cause of action is sought to be introduced. Therefore, in the light of the situation where the name of the defendant was wrongly mentioned as Maharaja Whiteline as the said name was mentioned in the advertisement, the amendment by allowing the plaintiffs to substitute the name of the Asiatic Engineers Private Limited as defendant has to be allowed. Under those circumstances, the contention opposing the above amendment by the learned counsel for the respondent does not deserve merit. Consequently, the petition is ordered.