[1] We think that the courts below were in error in refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint as prayed in his petition of the 8th July 1909. This petition was put in before any evidence had been recorded. It did not allege any new facts, but merely prayed that an additional relief might be granted on the facts stated in the original plaint.

[2] It may be that the further relief then asked for had become barred in the interval, but we do not think that this by itself necessarily renders the amendment improper. The rule applicable is that contained in Order VI, Rule 17, of the new Code of Civil Procedure which enacts that the court may at any stage allow a party to amend the pleadings "in such manner as may be just" and that "all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the partie, There can be no doubt that both the condition laid down in the above rule are satisfied in the present ease. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff and the facts on which he claimed them are stated in the original plaint, though he then only asked the court to recover his aecount books from the defendants, who were alleged to be his servants, and said he would bring a separate suit for the money due by them. He afterwards thought it was desirable to claim the recovery of the money in the same suit. There is no injustice to the defendants in allowing this amendment, for the effect of it is to enable the plaintiff to prove his right to money which, before any bar by limitation had arisen, he had in the original plaint claimed as due to him by the defendants (see the remarks of Bakhelor J. in Kisandas Rupchand v, Rachappa Vithoba (1909) I.L.R. 33 Bom. 644 at 651 and also the recent case in this court, Mullet, Veettil Seethi Kutti v. Korambath Painthuti Achutan Nair . The case of Weldon v. Meal (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 394 is very different from the present case, for in that case the proposed amendment alleged assault, malicious prosecution and other facts not stated in the original plaint, and which constituted a totally new cause of action. The courts below not only refused to allow amendment in the present case, but dismissed the plaintiff s suit as originally framed on the ground that it was unsustainable.

[3] We do not understand why it was considered to be so. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were his servants on a monthly pay and had charge of his shop, and claimed that the accounts kept by them in regard to the business were his property and he sued to recover these accounts. It is difficult to see why such a suit should be unsustainable.

[4] We set aside the decrees of the courts below and remand the suit to the District Munsif to be restored to his file and to be disposed of according to law. He should allow the amendment desired by the plaintiff, and allow the defendants to put in a fresh written statement if they desire to do so, and if necessary, he should revise the issues.

[5] The costs will abide the results.