-> V. A-43 % 29.09.2011 Present: Mr.Alok Bhachawat and Mr.Syed Hasan Isfahni and Mr.Udai Veer Singh, Advocates for the petitioner. +CM(M) No.1143/2011 * The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 28.5.2011 vide which the apphcation filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of her plaint had been allowed. The defendant is aggrieved by the order. The present petition was a petition seeking maintenance; the suit had initially been filed in the year 2000; claim was for maintenance of Rs.25000/-; thereafter an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed which has been withdrawn on 25.10.2005 on the statement of the plaintiff that she claimed maintenance at Rs.35000/- per month and due to a typographical mistake her claim in the plaint has been restricted only to Rs.25000/-. A second application for amendment of the plaint had been filed on 19.7.2010; the impugned order has allowed this amendment. The amendment permitted to the plaintiff was that she was now seeking maintenance at Rs.35000/- per month which included past and future maintenance. Vehement contention of the petitioner is that past maintenance was barred by limitation and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 Revaieetu Builders & Developers Vs. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified V 0 Naravanaswamv & Sons & Ors. ; a time barred claim cannot be granted by way of amendment. Record shows that the issues have not yet been framed. The petitioner has sought enhancement of maintenance at the rate of claim of Rs.35,000/- per month and as noted supra inclusive of past and future maintenance. The Court below had correctly noted that the nature of the controversy between the parties remains the same; and the amendments permitted would not change the nature of the suit; needless to state that the question as to whether the past maintenance is time barred or not can be taken up at the appropriate stage as admittedly issues have not yet been framed. The impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity. Dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 nandan