Judgment :- Common Order: These revisions have been filed as against the dismissal orders passed in the Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioner under Order VI rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint in both the suits filed by it. 2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff, a Private Limited Company filed the suits as against the defendant C.P.Mohideen Co., represented by its Proprietor C.P.Mohideen, for recovery of a sum of Rs.59,734/= and Rs.57,157/= respectively, with subsequent interest on the principal sums for supply of foot wears. The defendant filed written statement wherein it has stated that it is a partnership concern. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the Interlocutory Applications contending that at the time of institution of the suits, the plaintiff company was not aware of the fact that the defendant is a Partnership Firm since all the transactions with the defendant were directly done with Mr.C.P.Mohideen. Therefore since the defendant also takes a specific stand and objects the very institution of the suits against it, the proposed amendments are just and necessary for the effective adjudication of the issues. 3. After taking into consideration of the affidavits and the counter affidavits filed in the respective Interlocutory Applications, the learned I Additional District Munsif, Salem, by two separate orders dismissed the two I.As., holding that the amendment sought for in effect amounts to substitution of the defendant and the claim is now sought as against the Partnership concern which is a new legal entity to the suit. Aggrieved of the same, the present revisions are filed by the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contended that the plaintiff has sought to amend the description of the defendant as a Partnership firm instead of Proprietor and not adding a new party. According to him, even in the written statement the defendant has admitted the supply of goods and also the reasons for his non payment of the amount due to the plaintiff. Further the amendment sought for is on account of the defendant and the defendant cannot take advantage of his own fault. It is also contended by the learned counsel that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant since the defendant has already set out its defence and admitted the supply of goods and the liability to pay the amount, whereas, if the proposed amendment is not allowed, it will cause serious loss to the plaintiff. 5. It is also contended by the learned counsel that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant since the defendant has already set out its defence and admitted the supply of goods and the liability to pay the amount, whereas, if the proposed amendment is not allowed, it will cause serious loss to the plaintiff. 5. Per contra, Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel submitted that even though the written statement has been filed in the year 2000, the plaintiff has kept silent for nearly three years and the if the present amendment sought for is allowed then the amended prayer would be barred by limitation and it will not have the effect of "relate back" to the date of filing of the suit and cure the defect of limitation. In other words, it is contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that since the amended prayer would change the very basis of the suit itself, the suit would be taken to have been filed on the date of the amended for the purposes of limitation. 6. But, in the present case, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is only to amend the description of the defendant as a Partnership Firm, instead of Proprietor concern and it neither introduces a new cause of action nor change the character of the suit. Further, the amendment has been sought for by the plaintiff only after filing of the written statement wherein the defendant has taken up a specific plea that the suit is not in conformity with Order 37 Rule 2 CPC, viz., the defendant is a Partnership concern consist of Mr.C.P.Mohideen and another partner Mr.C.P.Kunjumohammed, whereas the suit has been filed as against Mr.C.P.Mohideen describing him as the Proprietor of the Company. 7. According to the plaintiff, all its transactions were only with the said C.P.Mohideen and therefore till filing of the written statement it was under the strong belief that C.P.Mohideen is the sole Proprietor of the defendant company and filed the suit as such. Moreover, the suits have been filed for recovery of money and therefore in the present case the amendment sought for will not amount to substitution of a new defendant, though it has a separate legal entity in the eye of law, but addition of the other partner viz., the suit claim will be as against partnership firm consisting of both the partners. Further, if such technical objection is entertained, then the plaintiff will have no remedy for claiming the sum due as alleged in the two suits, particularly, when the defendant has admitted his liability in the written statement itself. In such circumstances, the defendant cannot say that valuable right has accrued to it and sought to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation. 8. The decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel for the respondent are with regard to the effect of relating back and the applicability of the limitation of the amended prayer. But such is not the case here. The decisions referred to would only apply to cases where the amendment made changes the very basis of the suit itself and not to the facts of the case. 9. For the reasons stated above, both the revisions are allowed setting aside the orders made in I.A.No: 11 of 2005 in O.S.No:346 of 2004 and I.A.No: 139 of 2005 in O.S.No:1449 of 2004 passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Salem. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.