ORDER Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Sri. Rajashekar Seeri. 2. These revision petitions arise from the judgment and order dated 26.7.1997 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, rejecting the Plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint sought by incorporating the following as the proposed amendment. Proposed Amendment- 8. A) Without prejudice to the above contentions, if Court were to please to hold that the then management of the Plaintiff-trust is validly and legally constituted body in that event, the acts of the then body are not valid for the following reasons:- (a) The Trustees have not obtained prior permission from the Court to create a lease beyond 3 years. (b) The plots are unreasonable, generally plots were/are made of 2, 3, 4, 5-Gunthas, the present plots created by the then trustees were of 15, 17, 18, and 35 Gunthas. (c) Fixed rent is payable. There was no provision in the lease-deed to increase the rent even after 5 years. (d) The lease-deeds have been got executed by everyone of the office bearer, without there being any resolution. (e) At the end of the period, there is a condition that the lessor shall have to value the existing structure and amount shall be paid by the lessor. (f) The office bearers are/were friends and have managed to transfer the valuable properties, in favour of persons who were well placed in the society, in collusion with each other. (g) The said transaction is not beneficial to the Plaintiff and have neglected the interest of the Plaintiff. (h) The lessees have transferred the plots to other persons without the consent of the Plaintiff-Deity in violation of the lease terms. (i) The lessees have not even paid the rent payable by them. (j) The trustees have not taken into account the time, the location of the area price then prevailing, when the Plaintiff-trust is in oppressed position. (k) The acts of the then trustees are not an act of an ordinary prudent man. As such, the lease deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff-trust is not binding on the Plaintiff-trust 3. The Court below rejected the amendment application taking the view that the amendment sought is changing the nature of the case as it amounts to claiming declaratory relief which is barred by time. As such, the lease deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff-trust is not binding on the Plaintiff-trust 3. The Court below rejected the amendment application taking the view that the amendment sought is changing the nature of the case as it amounts to claiming declaratory relief which is barred by time. It has also opined that in the absence of permission of the Charity Commissioner, the amendments cannot be allowed. I have perused the plaints of the above suits in which application for amendment has been made. The Plaintiffs have asserted and claimed that the possession of Defendants 1 to 11 vide transactions referred to in the plaint was illegal and fraudulent. The lease transaction involved is illegal and fraudulent and the alienation in favour of V.B. Halbhavi, ancestor of Defendants 1 to 11 has been illegal. The plea of illegality of transaction of lease etc., had already been raised in the plaint and there are allegations that the Defendants have also not complied with the terms of the lease transaction. It has also been alleged that the persons who granted the lease had no right to grant the lease and the previous alleged management committee was illegal. In the plaint, copy of which has been placed before me, it has also been asserted that the Defendants 1 to 11 have not acquired any legal rights, title or interest in the suit property as their ancestor Veerabhadrappa Basappa Halbhavi referred to above had not acquired any legal rights in the suit property. Moreover, the Defendants, their ancestors, referred to above have also not complied with the terms of the lease transaction in the deed executed by S.S. Ghali. In paragraph No. 6 it has been alleged that the Defendants are in illegal possession of the suit property and the Defendants have no right to continue in the possession of the suit property. 4. Looking to the plaint allegations referred to above, particularly relevant paras thereof, I find that the amendment i.e., sought to be made in the plaint does not constitute a new case or new cause of action when I apply the yardsticks laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Gupta and Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 . Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 . Their Lordships have observed and laid down the law on the subject 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 Vs. Neale, 1887 (19) QBD 394. 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 vs. Amir Khan 47 Ind App 255 : AIR 1921 SC 50 and L.J. Leach and Company Ltd. Vs. Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR 1957 SC 357 . (8) 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 vs. Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 (710-711) 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 (Kisandas Rupchand vs. Rachappa Vithoba ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 at 651, approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others, AIR 1957 SC 363 ) (9) 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 Vs. Gill, 1873 (8) CP 107 (116), 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 vs. Unicos Property Corporation Limited, 1962 All ER 24, and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. 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 vs. Unicos Property Corporation Limited, 1962 All ER 24, 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 Vs. J.W. Ellis and Co. Limited, 1962 All ER 303. 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. 5. In the present case, the Plaintiff has only substantiating further and pressing the plea taken in the plaint that the transactions in favour of the Defendants and their ancestors were illegal and invalid. The Plaintiffs wanted to add additional facts. No new claim is being made. The claim is that the Defendants' possession under lease-deeds are illegal and lease-deeds are illegal and they have not even fulfilled the terms of lease as has been stated in the plaint itself which I have quoted earlier. The amendment in question, as such, cannot be said to be introducing a new claim based on new set of ideas on new facts. The claim is same that the lease-deed is illegal. The possession of the Defendants is illegal and in the plaint, as quoted, it has been stated that the Defendants have not even complied with the terms of the lease vide page 13 of the original plaint and in the amendment paragraphs there is modification only of the allegations that is contained in the plaint. Amendment had been brought and it is really beneficial to the Defendants now that they can know on what points they have to counter and meet. 6. The learned Counsel contended that before making the amendment, permission of the Charity Commissioner should have been taken and he referred to Section 50 of the Bombay Charities Act. 7. Section 50 provides for suits of the nature covered by either of the clauses which includes previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner had to be taken. The plea of the Plaintiffs was that they brought it to the notice of the Charity Commissioner that the Defendants' possession was illegal and invalid. 7. Section 50 provides for suits of the nature covered by either of the clauses which includes previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner had to be taken. The plea of the Plaintiffs was that they brought it to the notice of the Charity Commissioner that the Defendants' possession was illegal and invalid. The section requires that before any suit is filed, permission has to be taken. But, it does not mean that if some amendment or modification is necessary, again permission has to be taken when permission has already been taken. Once with permission suit has been filed, the permission for amendment need not to be taken from the Civil Court before which the suit is pending. It is also well settled that if it is an additional approach and does not amount to a new case, then amendment made in such suit may be allowed. It is well settled that if amendment is sought at any stage but it does not make out a new case and does not cause irreparable loss, it has to be allowed. 8. In my opinion, the amendment, if allowed, will not cause irreparable injury to either side nor it amounts to making out a new case. In my opinion, the Trial Court by taking a wrong view that it amounts to a new case and made after limitation, without applying its maid to the leading case and particularly the Damodar Valley's case which explains what is new case, illegally refused to grant permission to amend the plaint. In my opinion, for the complete adjudication of the case, the amendment was necessary and should have been allowed. This order per se reveals nothing but failure on the part of the Court below in applying its mind to the basic legal principles of law explaining new case and that amounts to illegality on the part of the Trial Court. The justice is going to suffer by non-allowing the amendment. 9. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, revisions have to be allowed. Both the revisions are hereby allowed. The amendment application is allowed. 10. The Plaintiffs are allowed to incorporate the proposed amendment as in paragraph (8)(a) subject to payment of Rs. 1,100/- in each case as the cost of amendment which amount shall be distributed equally among the Defendants in the respective suits. Both the revisions are hereby allowed. The amendment application is allowed. 10. The Plaintiffs are allowed to incorporate the proposed amendment as in paragraph (8)(a) subject to payment of Rs. 1,100/- in each case as the cost of amendment which amount shall be distributed equally among the Defendants in the respective suits. After the amendment is incorporated and cost is paid, the Trial Court will allow the Defendants to file the additional written statement. After the additional written statement, if necessary, if any additional issue has to be framed, it may be framed and suit may be proceeded with. 11. Thus, both the revisions are hereby allowed by this common order.