Judgment :- The revision petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 12.5.1998 in I.A.No.100 of 1996 in A.S.No.74 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pudukottai. 2. The revision petitioner is the 8th respondent before the first appellate Court and 8th defendant in the suit. The first respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property from the respondents 2 to 10 and the revision petitioner/8th defendant in the suit. The learned District Munsif, Pudukottai dismissed the suit and thereupon, the aggrieved plaintiff preferred the appeal before the first appellate Court. Pending disposal of the appeal, the plaintiff filed the application in I.A.No.100 of 1996 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint for an alternative relief of redemption of Othi in respect of the suit 'B' schedule property. The lower appellate Court after analysing the pleadings and arguments advanced on either side allowed the petition on condition of payment of Rs.1,000/- to the contesting respondents and since the condition was complied with, the amendment was ordered as prayed for. Hence the revision. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that since the proposed amendment introduced entirely different cause of action, inasmuch as the same is barred by limitation, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the decisions, SHRIMONI GURDWARA COMMITTEE v. JASWANT SINGH (1996 (II) S.C.C. 690); HEERALAL v. KALYAN MAL ( 1998 (I) S.C.C. 278 ). 4. A careful perusal of the said decisions reveal that the ratio in the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under different facts and circumstances is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the case in 1996 (II) S.C.C. 690 mutually destructive pleadings were sought to be raised in the written statement at a belated stage and therefore such an amendment was refused. Similarly, in the case in 1998 (I) S.C.C. 278 , an admission made in the written statement by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff was sought to be withdrawn by means of the proposed amendment and in that case, such an attempt was negatived and therefore the amendment was not approved. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio enunciated in the said judgments is not applicable herein. 5. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio enunciated in the said judgments is not applicable herein. 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the first respondent has adverted the attention of this Court to the cause of action adumbrated in the plaint in paragraph 8 where the factum of the usufructuary mortgage dated 26.8.1962 was mentioned in specific term and therefore he has urged that by reason of the amendment, there is no change in the cause of action. Further he has urged that since the suit was laid within 30 years from the date of the said usufructuary mortgage, the relief sought for by way of amendment is not barred by limitation. 6. In this context, he has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in VELLAI AMMAL v. CHINNAMMAL ( 1994 (1) M.L.J. 98 ) in support of such contention and the ratio laid down in the said decision reads as follows:- "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 satisfied 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 justice." 7. A careful perusal of the records of the case lends support to the contention raised by the respondent's counsel for the reason that the existence of usufructuary mortgage was specifically pleaded and therefore, in view of the ratio of the decision cited above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner was not taken by surprise by the proposed amendment nor had the claim been barred by limitation as the suit was laid within time. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the first Appellate Court was justified in allowing the amendment of the plaint and therefore, the impugned order has to be confirmed. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the first Appellate Court was justified in allowing the amendment of the plaint and therefore, the impugned order has to be confirmed. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition deserves no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.