J C RUDRASHARMA Vs. H K SUBRAMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these three revisions arise out of common order passed by the additional city civil judge, Bangalore, on 14th july, 1995, on applications moved by the plaintiff in o.s. nos. 958, 2993 of 1984 and 3655 of 1985, rejecting the applications for amendment under order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 and are being disposed of by one common judgment and order making c.r.p. No. 2916 of 1995 as leading case.

(2.) the brief facts of the case are that in the year 1984, the plaintiff-revisionist filed the two suits one after the other. In those suits, the plaintiff moved the above applications for amendment seeking the permission to take the additional relief for decree of declaration of title in his favour declaring plaintiff to be the owner of the suit schedule property which the trial court dismissed on the ground of delay and taking the view that relief for declaration of title was being sought after the expiry of the period of limitation, so it cannot be granted. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and order of the trial court, the revisionist has filed these three revisions which are being connected and being disposed of by this one common order.

(3.) the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri ananda shetty, submitted before me that the court below illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by refusing to allow the amendment and particularly, on the simple ground of delay. Further, Sri ananda shetty submitted that really, the court below acted illegally and contrary to the principles of law relating to amendment as laid down by the Supreme Court. That the court below had taken the view that amendment if allowed will not be going to change the nature of the suit nor will it introduce a new case than what was sought to be made out in the plaint by the plaintiff, yet it has rejected the application for amendment taking the view on the ground that 10 years have passed, since the filing of the suit, so, the permission to amend is not granted as the amendment of relief for declaration has been sought after the expiry of limitation. The learned counsel for the opposite parties Sri c.k. venkatesh, who appears for respondents in all the three cases has submitted that really, there have been laches on the part of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff allowed the time to pass on, but, did not seek amendment within the time prescribed for a suit of declaration. Lastly, Sri c.k. venkatesh, submitted that there is no good ground for interference in revision and so, the court has jurisdiction to allow the amendment.