C. HASHIM Vs. C. JASMINE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can an application seeking an amendment for incorporating a relief, which is different from the relief already sought for in the original plaint, be declined merely on the ground that the relief sought for is time barred as on the date of the amendment application, is the short question to be decided here.

(2.) Exhibit P5 order passed by the court below in I.A.No.3861 of 2012 in O.S.No.535 of 2010 is under challenge. Through the said order, the court below has allowed the amendment sought for by the plaintiff. The suit, as it originally stands, is one for a declaration that the General Power of Attorney No.159 of 1996 of the Kozhikode Sub Registry, Release Deed No.1166 of 2007 of the Kozhikode Sub Registry, and the Jenmom Assignment Deed No.4333 of 2008 of the Koduvally Sub Registry, are null and void. As relief No.(ii), a decree of perpetual injunction has also been sought for.

(3.) Paragraph 11 of the plaint deals with the cause of action for the suit as on 01.10.2008 on which date the plaintiff came to know of the execution of Release Deed No.1166 of 2007 of the Kozhikode Sub Registry, by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, on 27.06.2010 on which date the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were entertaining an idea to execute further conveyance relating to plaint A schedule property, and thereafter.