1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2975 of 2009 (Baburao S. Ranit v. Chagan O. Patil) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 20 th July, 2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a petition by the plaintiff taking exception to the rejection of his application for amendment of plaint by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandura. The petitioner had filed a suit in the year 2005, precisely on 5-4-2005, whereby he sought specific performance of agreement dated 7-12-2004 for sale of certain property. The written statement in the suit was filed on 11-7-2005, by which it was pointed out that on 11-3-2005, i.e. before the suit was filed, defendant No.3 had purchased the property from defendant Nos.1 and 2 by a registered sale-deed. Now in spite of getting this 2 knowledge, the plaintiff merrily slept over the matter. Thereafter, the issues were struck and the evidence of the parties was tendered in the year 2008. Then the plaintiff woke up on 23-3-2009 and sought amendment of the plaint in order to incorporate a prayer that the sale-deed dated 11-3-2005 should be set aside. This application was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Judge by his order below Exhibit 72. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pankaja and another v. Yellappa (Dead) by LRs. and another, reported at (2004) 6 SCC 415. In that case too, an amendment was sought to be assailed as barred by limitation and the Court held that there is arguable question whether the limitation applicable for seeking the relief of declaration on the facts of the case falls under Entry 58 of the Limitation Act or under Entry 64 or Entry 65 of the Limitation Act which question was required to be decided at the trial and, therefore, allowed the amendment. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another, reported at (2002) 7 SCC 559, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, the Court held that in order to avoid multiplicity of the suit, the amendment should be allowed. 3 In the present proceedings, the plaiantiff has left no doubt that he became aware of the sale-deed, which is sought to be assailed, in any case, on 11-7-2005 and yet chose to amend the plaint four years thereafter, after the remedy for seeking a declaration to have the sale-deed set aside was clearly barred by limitation. In this case, there is no doubt as to which different articles of Limitation Act would apply to help the plaintiff to protract the litigation. Having slept over his rights, the plaintiff has to blame himself. No interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is called for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl