SEPC LIMITED Vs. V.S.SUNILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for injunction of the year 2016 is sought to be amended as one for recovery of money as well, in the year 2023. By Ext.P8 order, the same was allowed, holding that the dispute is between the same parties, with respect to the same subject matter and that the amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit. As regards the objection that the amended claim is barred by law of limitation, the learned Sub Judge found that Ext.P4 order of the High Court reserved a right in favour of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) to agitate his claim for money. Besides, it was also found that the petitioner was waiting on the basis of an agreement arrived at between the parties in the aegis of the Minister for Agriculture recorded in the Minutes of Meeting (MoM) dtd. 13/1/2016; and the question whether the said period is liable to be excluded and whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action for filing the suit for recovery of money can be decided only after evidence. The aggrieved second defendant is the petitioner herein.

(2.) Heard Sri.Ashok Anchalia and Sri.John Joseph Vettikad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.N. Manoj, learned counsel for the first respondent, Sri.Joseph M.P., learned counsel for the second respondent, Sri.Nithin George, learned counsel for the third respondent and Sri.B.Premod, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/second defendant essentially stressed on the contention that the claim for recovery of money is awfully barred by the law of limitation. Such an amendment takes away a valuable defence available to the petitioner/second defendant and hence cannot be allowed, is the submission made. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this regard.