IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.585 of 2007 ----------- Smt. Rita Sinha, wife of Sri Pradeepdhari Sinha, resident of village Dharhara, P.S. Paliganj, District Patna, at present residing at Dharhara Kothi Churi Bazar, Kadam Kuan, P.S. Kadam Kuan, Town and District Patna. ……Plaintiff- Petitioner. Versus Sri Praveendhakri Sinha, son of late Surendradhari Sinha, resident of village Dharhara, P.S. Paliganj, District Patna, at present residing at 401 Nilgiri, Apartment, Boring Canal Road, Patna. …….Defendant-Opposite Party. --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Nand Rai, Sr. Advocate and Mrs. Pravina Kumari(Rai). For the Opp. Party: Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. --------- 04/ 07.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 08.02.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Patna rejected her application for amendment of her plaint in Title Suit No. 283 of 2002. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- petitioner for specific performance of contract regarding agreement for sale dated 09.05.1999 and for other ancillary reliefs. The sole defendant-opposite party appeared in the suit and contested the same by way of filing a written statement denying any such agreement for sale. 4. However, before the settlement of issues, the plaintiff filed an interlocutory application dated 22.07.2006 for amendment of the plaint, which was contested by the defendant, 2 who filed his rejoinder and finally the learned court below rejected the said application by its order dated 08.02.2007 on the ground that it is barred by the law of limitation and would change the nature of the suit and is filed at a belated stage. The said order has been challenged by the plaintiff in the instant civil revision. 5. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the plaintiff sought four amendments, namely, (i) few additions in paragraph no.3, (ii) change in the year in paragraph no.7, (iii) addition of a relief and (iv) addition of a schedule in the plaint. 6. So far amendment sought in paragraph no.3 of the plaint is concerned, it is quite apparent from the plaint that it was already stated that the defendant received a sum of Rs.4,50,000.00 till 09.05.2000 by way of full consideration money from the plaintiff. Furthermore from the amendment sought in the said paragraph, it transpires that the plaintiff merely wanted to show how and when the parts of the said consideration money were paid. The said amendment does not contradict the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint nor it would change the nature of the suit, rather it is merely explanatory in nature. 7. So far the amendment in the first line of paragraph no.7 is concerned, it is quite apparent from the plaint that it has been stated that cause of action arose on 09.05.1999 when the defendant agreed to execute the requisite sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 3 However, by amending the date, 09.05.1999 is sought to be changed to 09.05.2000. From a perusal of the plaint it transpires that nowhere in the plaint the date 09.05.1999 has been mentioned, rather at some places the date 09.05.2000 has been mentioned. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that 09.05.1999 has been mentioned in the first line of paragraph no.7 due to typographical error and the plaintiff was quite justified in praying for amending the said date 09.05.2009 to 09.05.2000. 8. It is also apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the said suit was filed in June, 2002, i.e. prior to coming into force of the amendment in the Civil Procedure Code on 01.07.2002. Furthermore the aforesaid two amendments sought were neither at any belated stage, nor were going to change the nature of the suit, rather they were necessary for the full, final and proper adjudication of all the disputes arising between the parties. 9. So far remaining two amendments sought by the plaintiff are concerned, they are for addition of an alternative relief for recovery of Rs.4,50,000.00 with interest, and also for addition of Schedule-II with respect to the details of the amount sought to be paid. It is quite apparent from the plaint that the relief originally sought was merely for specific performance of contract as well as for ad interim injunction, cost and any other relief and no relief with regard to payment was sought in the plaint. Furthermore, according to the plaint the defendant agreed to execute the sale-deed on 09.05.1999 and by way of amendment it is sought to be claimed by 4 the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed on 09.05.2000 and he refused to execute the said sale-deed on 09.06.2002, whereafter the suit was filed on 20.06.2002. Had the plaintiff sought a relief for recovery of money at the time of filing of the suit, the said claim would not have been barred by law of limitation. However, the plaintiff only on 22.07.2006 i.e. after lapse of more than four years from the date of refusal and also from the date of filing of the suit, filed an amendment petition for addition of a relief for recovery of the said amount. Now the only question arises here is as to whether the said claim is barred by law of limitation. 10. Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 specifically provides that for a suit for specific performance of a contract the limitation is three years from the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. In the instant case, even according to the claim of the plaintiff no date was fixed for the performance of the agreement but the date of refusal was 09.06.2002. Hence, it is quite apparent that that limitation has to be counted from 09.06.2002. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there will be no question of any limitation in the instant case as the amendment, if allowed, will relate back to the date of filing of the suit and the filing of the suit was well within the period of three years from the refusal and hence there will be no such bar. On that issue, he relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of 5 Siddalingamma vs. Mamtha Shenoy, reported in (2001) 8 S.C.C. 561 ( paragraph 10). He also relies upon a single Bench decision of this Court in case of Mukti Narain Prasad vs. Sri Man Narain Sharan, reported in 2006 (2) P.L.J.R. 547, in which it was held that whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation is a matter of decision at the time of final hearing of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, such amendment can be allowed. 12. So far the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Siddalingamma (supra) is concerned, it related to a matter, which is completely alien to the facts and circumstances of the case as in the said case question of bar was not applicable, rather there were some deficiency in the pleadings, which was sought to be removed and hence the doctrine of relation back was held to apply, but here in the instant case there is a specific bar provided by law. So far the decision of this Court in case of Mukti Narain Prasad (supra) is concerned, the bar of limitation was not quite apparent, rather the view of this Court was that it has to be considered subsequently on the face of pleadings and evidence of the parties. 13. But here in the instant case the bar of limitation is staring hard on the face of the case and does not need any further pleadings or evidence. In addition to that a right has accrued to the defendant by way of specific provision of law and that cannot be allowed to be defeated by way of such amendment beyond the period prescribed in law. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K. Radhika Devi 6 v. Bajrangi Singh, reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2358 as well as to a decision of this Court in case of Bhagwati Prasad Jalan vs. Smt. Prem Lata Devi Kedia reported in 1997 (1) P.L.J.R. 674. 14. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the addition sought by the plaintiff by way of amendment in the relief as well as in the schedule of the plaint. 15. Accordingly, this civil revision is allowed in part. The impugned order,so far it relates to rejecting the amendment/addition sought in the relief and schedule of the plaint, is hereby affirmed as this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error therein. However, the impugned order, so far it relates to rejecting minor amendments sought in paragraphs no.3 and 7 of the plaint, is hereby set aside and the said amendments are allowed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )