SCHENCR PROCESS INDIA LTD Vs. VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the original defendant of Special Civil Suit No.105 of 1997 passed on 19.1.2009. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff Company which filed the suit against the present petitioners for recovery of sum of around Rs.10 crores.

(2.) An application was moved by the petitioner Company for amendment of the plaint. The Court allowed the said application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the respondent has preferred this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the alleged ex facie illegal order. Not only the challenge has been made on merit but also on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioner defendant were not refuted by way of rejoinder -affidavit and no arguments were offered by the respondent plaintiff at any point of time and yet without hearing the Advocate for the respondent, only on hearing the petitioner's Advocate, application has been allowed.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner Mr. M.C.Bhatt has urged that management of the respondent Company has been changed thrice and after a gross delay of many years (nearly 10 years) such an application has been moved for changing the cause title. According to the learned Advocate amendment sought to be made though is ostensibly innocuous, in fact it amounts to allowing the condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. Heavy reliance is placed on Article 137 of Law of Limitation Act, 1963 and urged that since Code of Civil Procedure does not prescribe any period of limitation, Article 137 will have to be employed, which prescribes the period of limitation of 3 years and the period would start to run from the date on which the right to appeal accrues. Accordingly the petitioner Company was first re -constituted in the year 1997, once again in the year 2005 and, therefore, an application was being Exh.21 on 19.1.2009 is ex facie barred by law of limitation as no grounds are made out for condonation of delay of about more than 10 years. Reliance is placed on Order 22 Rule 10 and accordingly the request is made to quash and set aside the order.