TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A1 B M N O L portion and also the N N1 O O 1 at annexure-A to the plaint of the suit schedule property. c) Such other relief/reliefs that this Hon ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case as also the cost of this suit. It is their case during the pendency of the said suit the respondent in violation of the court order further encroached into suit property to an extent of 15 x 15 . Therefore, the appellants sought for an amendment of the plaint seeking for possession of the said encroached area also. This application was also allowed by the Trial Court. In the written statement filed by the respondents, a contention was taken that a suit for injunction and possession without seeking a declaration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt was in error in coming to the conclusion that a belated application for amendment of the plaint, per se can not be allowed, she also contended the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the proposed amendment if granted would take away the right accrued to the respondent by lapse of time. She submitted that this view of the High Court is opposed to a number of judgments of this Court where this Court had taken the view that delay in filing an application for amendment by itself should not be a ground for rejection of such application unless a serious prejudice was caused to the opposite party. She further submitted on the facts of this case the necessary averments in regard to the title of the appellants over the suit proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1963 a suit for declaration could have been instituted only within 3 years when the right to sue accrued to the appellants and the said right having accrued as far back as in the year 1994, an amendment seeking a declaratory prayer after 6 years thereafter is clearly barred by the provision of the Limitation Act and the respondents having accrued a statutory right the same could not have been defeated by allowing an amendment filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. So far as the Court s jurisdiction to allow an amendment of pleadings is concerned there can be no two opinion that the same is wide enough to permit amendments even in cases where there has been substantial delay in filing such amendment applications. This Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held :- It is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the interests of justice. This view of this Court has, since, been followed by a 3 Judge Bench of this Court in the case of T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity Board Ors. 2004 (3) SCC 392. Therefore, an application for amendment of the pleading should not be disallowed merely because it is opposed on the ground that the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case. The plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for. We think that the course adopted by this Court in Ragu Thilak D. John s case (supra) applies appropriately to the facts of this case. The courts below have proceeded on an assumption that the amendments sought for by the appellants is ipso facto barred by the law of limitation and amounts to introduction of different relief than what the plaintiff had asked for in the original plaint. We do not agree with the courts below that the amendments sought for by the plaintiff introduces a different relief so as to bar the grant of prayer for amendment, necessary factual basis has already been laid down in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
