MOHINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against dismissal of application for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners is that the counter claim, which the defendants could have made, was not possible because it is barred by the period of limitation and, therefore, amendment of the written statement was sought. If a particular claim, which the defendants had against the plaintiff, could have been lost by the bar of limitation then that itself ought to be a ground for even rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement.

(3.) While the Courts will be more lenient to consider all pleas for amendment of the written statement than amendment of the plaint, as laid down in several decisions, still an amendment that can cause prejudice to an adversary in defeating a defence for bar of limitation, could itself be a ground for rejection of a claim for amendment. The petitioners could not have, therefore, done through an amendment of what they could not have done by a counter claim.