Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned senior counsel tor the opposite party. 2. The present application has been tiled by the defendant-petitioner being aggrieved by an order by which the amendment of plaint, as sought for by the plaintiff, has been allowed. I may mention that the trial has not yet begun in the suit. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for, inter alia, a declaration that an adoption made in the family was binding or not binding. In the plaint the averments were made to the effect that about 25 years back they had filed alongwith others a similar suit, which was not pursued by either party and was dismissed. Though this fact was mentioned no relief against the said dismissal order was prayed for. By amendment the said missing relief is being prayed for in terms that the order dismissing the suit for non-prosecution for default of party be set aside and suit be restored. 4. The defendant-petitioner asserts before this court that in terms of Order iX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure the remedy open to the plaintiff was either to pray to recall of the order dismissing the suit by an appropriate application before the said court or file a fresh suit, subject to limitation, for the same relief. 5. Twenty five years having elapsed, the period of limitation prescribed was long over and as such, a valuable right had accrued to the defendant. 6. I am afraid, whether a suit would succeed finally or not or whether the suit is barred by limitation or not is a matter of decision consequent to the filing of suit. The plaintiff had a right to file a fresh suit. The issues being similar in the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking the relief in the present suit itself. I am not at present commenting upon the merit of the claim or otherwise, as that may be raised by the defendant and tried by the court. 7. Mr. Dwivedi has rightly relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John V/s. S. Ramyappan & Ors., 2000 (Vol. 2) SCC 472 and Pankaja & Anr. V/s. Yellappa (Dead) by LRS. & Ors., 2004 (Vol. 7. Mr. Dwivedi has rightly relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John V/s. S. Ramyappan & Ors., 2000 (Vol. 2) SCC 472 and Pankaja & Anr. V/s. Yellappa (Dead) by LRS. & Ors., 2004 (Vol. 6) SCC 415 wherein in similar circumstances where relief was barred still the Apex Court allowed the amendment only in order to avoid further litigation and/or multiplicity of litigation, as between the parties. 8. I accordingly find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed.