4. wp 2578-11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2578 OF 2011 Bageshri Milind Kshirsagar & Ors .. Petitioners Vs Shanta Vasant Deshpande & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b Mr. Sanjay S. Gawde for the Petitioners CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13th JUNE, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kanade, the learned counsel for the petitioners 2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Small Causes Court (exercising the jurisdiction of the Civil Court) allowing an application for amendment by the respondent nos. 1 to 5 (original plaintiff nos. 1 to 5). 3. The suit has been instituted prior to amendment of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by amending Act of 2002, hence, proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 does not apply to the present case. 4. The ordinary rule is that all the amendments are allowed unless 1 4. wp 2578-11.doc there are good reasons for rejecting the amendment. Mr. Kanade, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there were good grounds for rejecting the amendment inasmuch as the portion which was sought to be amended was barred by limitation. The time barred claim ought not to have been allowed to be raised by the amendment. Perusal of the portion sought to be amended shows that the Plaintiffs, by the amendment, are alleging that they were dispossessed of a sub- plot No. 11/14 during pendency of the suit. By an amendment, therefore, they were seeking possession. Period of limitation for filing the suit for possession is of 12 years. The application for amendment is made before expiry of 12 years from the date of alleged dispossession as the dispossession is alleged to have been taken place during the pendency of the suit and the suit itself is filed within 12 years before the application. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the amendment would introduce the claim which was barred by limitation. 5. Mr. Kanade initially submitted that Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 have sold their rights, title and interest in the suit property to Plaintiff No. 6 (respondent nos. 6 in the revision) and therefore, they had no right to apply for the amendment. However, during the course of hearing, Mr. Kanade submitted that he does not want to press this point as the petitioners are in the process of filing a separate petition regarding the sale by the Plaintiff Nos. 2 4. wp 2578-11.doc 1 to 5 to Plaintiff No. 6. 6. No other point was urged. 7. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is rejected. [ D.G. KARNIK, J ] 3 4. wp 2578-11.doc 4