RAMESHWAR DAYAL SHARMA Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS /defendants are aggrieved by order dated 8.10.2014 (Annexure P/1), whereby the court below has allowed the amendment application of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 after commencement of trial.

(2.) SHRI S.N.Seth, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order on the ground that admittedly the amendment application was filed at the stage when suit was fixed for final hearing. By way of amendment, the plaintiff wanted to bring certain facts, which were well within his knowledge earlier. The amendment was barred by time. He placed reliance on the averments of amendment application and reply filed by him. It is urged that the amendment application was filed after 16 years and, therefore, said application should not have been allowed. Shri Seth placed reliance on AIR 2009 SC 1177 (South Konkan Distilleries and another vs. Prabhkar Gajanan Naik & others) to contend that the court below erroneously relied on this judgment. By reading para 15 of said judgment, Shri Seth urged that in the case before Supreme Court, there was no dispute on the question of limitation whereas in the present case there exists a dispute and objection. Hence, such barred by time application should not have been allowed. He also relied on 2013 (1) MPLJ 325 (Abdul Wasid (dead) through L.Rs. Hanifa Begum and others vs. Munni Bai and others) to contend that barred by time relief cannot be granted.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri Abhishek Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs supported the order and relied on certain judgments. He submits that the suit was filed before 2002. Hence, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has no application in such suit.