DEEPCHAND Vs. SUKHLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had filed the suit for partition and possession of 1/3rd share of the property left by one Mst. Rambhabai. No prayer for past mesne profits or future mesne profits was, however, made. In the relief clause a general relief was claimed, to the effect that any other relief or reliefs which the Court may hold the plaintiff to be entitled to be decreed. The plaintiff now desires to amend the relief clause to the following effect:

(2.) THIS application is opposed by the respondents on the ground that a large part of the future mesne profits has already been barred by limitation. The amendment should not, therefore, be allowed at this stage.

(3.) IN Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. AIR 1957 SC 357 their lordships held: