MUNNA KHAN Vs. PUSHPA SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner.

(2.) Respondent herein filed a suit on the basis of a promissory note dated 20-4-1991, said to have been executed by the defendant in her favour for a sum of Rs. 45,000.00, alleging that no part of the interest and the principal had been paid but the relief claimed was for declaration that the plaintiff would be entitled to receive Rs. 45,000.00 as principal and Rs. 23,625.00 as interest from the defendant. The relief of declaration was valued at the total amount and fixed court-fee was paid under Sec. 7(iv) of the Court-fees Act. The court on 25-4-1994, directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee. On 13-7-1994, plaintiff filed an application seeking to pay the ad valorem court-fee less the court-fee already paid and seeking amendment in the plaint seeking to substitute the recovery of principal and the interest amount for the declaration originally prayed for. On the date of the application, a new suit for recovery of the money due under promissory note would have been barred by limitation. The defendant opposed the application on that ground, but the lower court allowed the application. This order is now challenged.

(3.) The promissory note bears the date 20-4-1991. The suit was originally filed on 19-3-1994, within three years from the date of promissory note. The application for amendment was filed on 13-7-1994, more than three years after the date of the promissory note. A suit for recovery of money on the basis of the promissory note would have been clearly barred on the date of application. On the strength of the decision in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shindgonda Patil and others, AIR 1957 SC 363, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that amendment taking away right accrued to a party by lapse of time cannot be allowed. The court observed that :