BHAGWANDAS Vs. OMKARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order of amendment of the plaint and the main grievance is that the amendment was allowed to be made at a time, when the suit itself if instituted would have become time barred. As a general rule such amendments are not allowed, but their Lordships of the Privy Council in (Charandas and others Vs. Amir Khan and others, 1921 AIR(PC) 50) have observed that "although such a power should not as a rule be exercised where its effect is to take away from a defendant a legal right which accrued to him by lapse of time, yet there are cases where such considerations are out-weighed by the special circumstances of the case."

(2.) The above case was quoted with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others, 1957 AIR(SC) 363) where their Lordships have held that the power exercised under Order 17 Rule 6 C. P. C. is one of discretion and where the amendment does not introduce a new case, the amendment can be allowed even after the expiry of the period of limitation. In the present case the amendment allowed does not alter the nature of the case and inconsequence the exercise of discretion need not be interfered with.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that lower Court has allowed amendment without awarding costs to the petitioner. But awarding of the costs is a matter of discretion. It would have been better if the lower Court had awarded costs, but no interference in revision is necessary for that reason alone.