Civil Revision No. 1308 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1308 of 2009 Date of decision. 08.07.2009 Smt. Balwinder Kaur wife of Shri Manjit Singh, resident of village Sotal Baba, Tehsil and District Ropar. ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Punjab through Collector, Ropar Tehsil and District, Ropar. 2. Director Social Security and Child Development Department Sector 34, Chandigarh. 3. Raj Rani Child Development and Project Officer near Water Tanki near Bus Stand Morinda Tehsil and District Ropar. 4. Smt. Saroj Bala wife of Shri Surinder Singh resident of Ward No.3, Fatehpur Mohalla, near Nagar Khera Dharamshala Kurali Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.T.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for respondent nos. 3 and 4. **** Civil Revision No. 1308 of 2009 --2-- Sham Sunder, J. 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. During the pendency of the suit, an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of plaint was filed by the plaintiff. It was stated that the plaintiff came to know that Saroj Bala, defendant-respondent no.4, had been appointed as Anganwari Worker in her place, vide order dated 09.03.2005, which was not in her knowledge. It was further stated that the said order was Civil Revision No. 1308 of 2009 --3-- completely illegal, null, void and arbitrary being against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, a prayer was made that the plaintiff (now revision-petitioner) be permitted to amend the plaint by challenging the order dated 09.03.2005, referred to above. 4. 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. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, the trial Court, dismissed the application. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the plaintiff-revision petitioner. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully. Civil Revision No. 1308 of 2009 --4-- 8. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, the revision-petitioner was not in the knowledge of the order dated 09.03.2005 when she filed the suit on 23.04.2005. He further submitted that the law with regard the amendment of pleadings, is very liberal. He further submitted that, in case, the revision-petition is not allowed, the revision petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss. He further submitted that the application was wrongly dismissed by the trial Court. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the order dated 09.03.2005, vide which Saroj Bala was appointed as Anganwari Worker, in place of the plaintiff, was already in her knowledge at the time of filing the suit on 23.04.2005, but she did not intentionally challenge the same at that time. They further submitted that on account of non-challenging the order dated 09.03.2005, within the period of limitation, a valuable right accrued in favour of the defendant-respondent no.4, on account of lapse of time. They further submitted that, in case the amendment was allowed that would amount to taking away the said right, which has already accrued in favour of respondent no.4. They further submitted that the revision-petitioner wanted to add a new claim, by way of amendment, beyond the period of limitation, which could not be permitted. They also placed reliance on M/s Melmo Agencies v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999(2) Civil Court Cases 446 (P&H) and Satbir Singh v. Executive Magistrate (SDM), Sangrur, 1998(2) Civil Court Civil Revision No. 1308 of 2009 --5-- Cases 151 (P&H), in support of their contentions. They further submitted that the trial Court was right in dismissing the application. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relevant to the amendment of pleadings, are extracted hereunder:- “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties”. “Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commended, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial”. 11. When the application for amendment was filed on 02.09.2008 by the plaintiff (now revision-petitioner), the trial had already commenced. As stated above, the suit was filed on 23.04.2005 and the order dated 09.03.2005, which the revision-petitioner wanted to challenge, by way of the amendment of plaint was already in existence and in her Civil Revision No. 1308 of 2009 --6-- knowledge. No doubt, the law with regard to the amendment of pleadings, is liberal, yet, the amendment of the pleadings cannot be allowed if a valuable right has already accrued, in favour of the opposite party, on account of lapse of time, and the claim which is sought to be added, by way of amendment, is beyond the period of limitation. The plaintiff (now revision petitioner ) could challenge the order dated 09.03.2005, vide which Saroj Bala was appointed, as Anganwari Worker, in her place, within a period of three years i.e. upto 09.03.2008. The plaintiff (now revision petitioner ) slept over the matter for more than three years and did not, file an application for amendment until 02.09.2008, seeking to add the claim for challenging the order dated 09.03.2005. On account of lapse of time, a valuable right accrued, in favour of respondent No.4-Saroj Bala. Allowing the amendment would tantamount to taking away the right, which has already accrued in favour of respondent no.4. In M/s Melmo Agencies's case (supra) the principle of law, laid down was to the effect that where the right has accrued, by lapse of time, it could not be taken away, by granting amendment of the plaint. In Satbir Singh's case (supra) it was held that if the amendment sought to add a new claim, or a new relief, beyond the period of limitation, the same could not be permitted. The plea sought to be added by way of amendment after the period of more than three years, was thus barred by limitation. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases is applicable to the facts of the case. Looked from any angle, Civil Revision No. 1308 of 2009 --7-- the application for amendment, moved by the plaintiff (now revision- petitioner ) could not be allowed. The trial Court was, thus, right in dismissing the same. The order impugned does not suffer from any patent illegality, or material irregularity or perversity, warranting interference, by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. ( Sham Sunder ) Judge July 08, 2009 dinesh