BALWINDER KAUR Vs. PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision-petition is directed against the order dated 04.11.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar, vide which it dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of plaint, filed by the plaintiff (now revision-petitioner).

(2.) THE plaintiff (now revision-petitioner) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was the Anganwari Worker, at Centre No. 2 in village Sotal Baba Tehsil and District Ropar, duly appointed by the Gram Panchayat of Village Sotal Baba w.e.f. 09.09.2004. It was stated that she worked as Anganwari worker from 10.09.2004 to 09.12.2004 and, as such, was entitled to receive the allowances (Bhatta), admissible as per Rules, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (now respondents) from relieving/removing her (plaintiff) from the said post.

(3.) THE application was contested by the defendants (now respondents), on the ground that the same was not maintainable. It was stated that the plaintiff(now revision-petitioner) was in the knowledge of the order dated 09.03.2005, right from the very beginning and did not challenge the same intentionally at the time of filing the suit on 23.04.2005. It was further stated that, in fact, the said order could only be challenged within a period of three years but the same was not done and the claim, which the plaintiff, sought to add by way of amendment, had already become barred by limitation. It was further submitted that a valuable right which had already accrued in favour of the defendants by lapse of time, could not be taken away by amendment.