1 app145.08.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 115 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 1315 OF 1990 Harkisondas Gokaldas & Co. & Ors. .....Appellants. Vs. Sunil Ajitlal Shah & Ors. ......Respondents. And Rupshi Pethabhai Shah .....Respondent. Ms. Saumya Srikrishna i/by M/s. S. Pathak & Co. for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 8th MARCH, 2011. P.C.: This is an appeal filed by the Plaintiffs making grievance against the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the Chamber Summons taken out by the Plaintiffs for amendment in the Plaint. The Plaintiffs filed Suit in the year 1990 seeking a decree of declaration of purported transfer of certain premises. It appears that 2 app145.08.sxw ssm in the year 1995 the Defendants filed a written statement and disclosed that the suit property has been transfered. The Chamber Summons was taken out in the year 2008 seeking amendment in the plaint to join the transferee pendent lite as Defendants and a prayer seeking a declaration that Deed of assignment is invalid. The learned Single Judge rejected the Chamber Summons and recorded a clear finding that the amendment as sought is barred by law of limitation. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants invited our attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court which lays down that the Court, even if it is alleged that the amendment sought in the plaint is barred by law of limitation, the Court can grant the amendment sought, keeping the question of limitation open. It is no doubt true that the Court can allow amendment in the plaint, though the Defendant alleges that it is barred by the law of limitation. However, in our opinion, when the Court finds that the Defendant claims that the amendment sought in the plaint is barred by the law of limitation, and the Plaintiff is not in a position to offer any defence against the plea that the amendment is barred by the law of limitation, then the Court will be well advised not to grant such an amendment. In the present case, we find that the Plaintiffs were made aware of the 3 app145.08.sxw ssm assignment of the property which was effected in March, 1994, and the assignment was disclosed in the written statement by the Defendants. The written statement was filed in June, 1995, still the Plaintiffs did not do anything till the year 2008. Therefore, we asked the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs as to what is possible defence he can offer to the plea of limitation. The learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs could not offer any defence. In our opinion, therefore, it will be futile exercise to allow amendment in the plaint keeping the question of limitation open. In this view of the matter, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Appeal is rejected with no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.)