RAM KUMAR Vs. SMT. SHANTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision is to the impugned order whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) The proposed amendment to the plaint was declined mainly on the ground that it is barred by time. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, challenging the impugned order, contended that even if the relief sought by way of amendment is barred by time, the amendment can be allowed. To support his argument, he has placed reliance on Raguthilak D. John v/s. S. Rayappan and Ors. : 2001(2) SCC 472.

(3.) It is true that purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend this pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide. It is also observed that delay on its own is not a ground for rejection of the application, as held in Estralla Rubber v/s. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. : 2001(8) S.C.C. 97. It is also observed under para 8 that, "in certain situations, a time barred claim cannot be allowed to be raised by proposing an amendment to take away the valuable accrued right of a party. However, mere delay in making an amendment application itself is not enough to refuse amendment, as the delay can be compensated in terms of money. Amendment is to be allowed when it does not cause serious prejudice to the opposite side."