plaintiff seeks to alter the cause of action itself and to introduce indirectly,
through an amendment of his pleadings, an entirely new or inconsistent
cause of action, amounting virtually to the substitution of a new plaint or a
new cause of action in place of what was originally there, the Court will
refuse to permit it if it amounts to depriving the party against which a suit is
pending of any right which may have accrued in its favour due to lapse of
time. But, mere failure to set out even an essential fact does not, by itself,
constitute a new cause of action. A cause of action is constituted by the
whole bundle of essential facts which the plaintiff must prove before he can
succeed in his suit. It must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. If
any essential fact is lacking from averments in the plaint the cause of action
will be defective. In that case, an attempt to supply the omission has been
and could sometimes be viewed as equivalent to an introduction of a new
cause of action which, cured of its short-comings, has really become a good
cause of action. This, however, is not the only possible interpretation to be
put on every defective state of pleadings. Defective pleadings are generally
curable if the cause of action sought to be brought out was not ab initio
completely absent. Even very defective pleadings may be permitted to be
cured so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided
necessary conditions, such as payment of either any additional court fees,
which may be payable, or, of costs of the other side are complied with. It is
only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of
action that the Courts should, ordinarily, refuse prayers for amendment of
