IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.410 of 2004 Date of decision : July 27, 2010 Ramesh Soni …Petitioner. Versus Sudershan and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15th November, 2004, Annexure A-2, by which amendment of plaint has been allowed, on the application of plaintiff- respondent. Amendment, which has been allowed, has the effect of pleading a cause of action against the present petitioner, who was initially not arrayed as defendant, but was allowed to be added so, by an earlier order passed on an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Initially, suit was filed against two persons, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages, on account of defamation. The present petitioner was summoned as a Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… witness by the plaintiff-respondent. While in the witness box, he stated that it was he who had supplied the alleged defamatory material to the defendants. Thereafter, an application for amending the plaint was made, so as to plead cause of action against the present petitioner. That application has been allowed. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that when the amendment was sought, the suit, as against him had already become time barred. It is true that the alleged cause of action accrued prior to 29th July, 2002, when the suit was filed. The present petitioner was added as a party, pursuant to order of June, 2004. The Court, while allowing the application, has noticed this fact, but observed that the plaintiff-respondent came to know about the involvement of the present petitioner in the acts of defamation only when he was in the witness box in the year 2004 and with this reasoning amendment has been allowed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Present petition is disposed of with the observation that anything noticed by the trial Court in its order dated 15th November, 2004, with respect to the limitation, shall be deemed to have been made only in context of application for amendment of plaint and it shall have no bearing on the plea of the petitioner/newly added defendant, with regard to the claim being barred by time, …3… which he may raise in the written statement and if such a plea is raised that shall be dealt with and adjudicated, independent of any observations appearing in the impugned order. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 31st August, 2010. July 27, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J