MARCUS D COSTA Vs. ANAND BHISSI GAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE was issued on 26th April, 2001 to the respondents indicating that the matter will be finally disposed of at the admission stage. Shri N. K. Sawaikar, learned Advocate appears for the respondent No. 2. Inspite of service, none appeared for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS revision takes exception to the order dated 13th February, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sanguem in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2/2001 in Regular Civil Suit No. 23/87. By this order, the trial Court has allowed the application for amendment preferred by the respondent No. 1/original defendant. By the said amendment, the respondent No. 1 prayed for insertion of prayer Clause (b-b) after prayer Clause (b) in the counter-claim which reads as under:---

(3.) WITH regard to the merits of the said amendment, there is no dispute that the Court below has recorded a clear finding that the same is hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, therefore, contends that having recorded such a finding and which has not been challenged, it was impermissible for the trial Court to allow the amendment whereunder the relief claimed was barred by limitation. It is well settled that such an amendment cannot be permitted. In this context, reliance is placed on the decisions in (Munilal v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another), reported in 1996 (1) S. C. C 90 and (Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh and others), reported in 1996 (7) S. C. C. 486.