C. R. No. 7036 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 7036 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 27, 2010 M/s Amrik Singh Zora Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Baldev Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 moved by the petitioner- plaintiff for amendment of plaint. The petitioner has filed suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure against respondent-defendant Baldev Singh for recovery of Rs.74,132/- i.e. Rs.41,795/- as principal amount and Rs.32,337/- as interest thereon for pre-suit period. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant, who is C. R. No. 7036 of 2010 2 a farmer, had been borrowing amounts from the plaintiff (commission agent) and ultimately, the suit amount remained due. In the amendment application, the plaintiff alleged that while filing the suit, entry of loan amount of Rs.70,000/- taken by the defendant from the plaintiff on 11.12.2002 was inadvertently omitted and therefore, the said loan amount along with interest is sought to be included in the plaint so as to make the suit as suit for recovery of Rs.1,70,720/- instead of Rs.74,132/-. The said amendment application has been dismissed by the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court has erroneously dismissed the amendment application on the ground that suit relating to additional amount to be claimed by amendment would be time barred, but in fact, after amendment, suit would relate back to the original date and therefore, the claim would be within limitation. The contention is completely distorted and misconceived and devoid of merit. The plaintiff, by way of amendment, wants to stake claim for recovery of amount allegedly advanced to the defendant on 11.12.2002, but the amendment application Annexure P-1 is dated 10.02.2010. The amendment application was thus moved more than seven years after the date of alleged advancement of the loan and claim to seek recovery of the said amount had become hopelessly barred by limitation when the amendment application C. R. No. 7036 of 2010 3 was moved. Therefore, the amendment application has been rightly declined by the trial court. In addition to the aforesaid, it has to be noticed that defendant- respondent had moved application for leave to defend the suit. Plaintiff- petitioner filed reply dated 30.09.2004 to the said application. In that reply, the plaintiff mentioned the loan amount of Rs.70,000/- in question to have been advanced on 12.11.2001 instead of 11.12.2002. The plaintiff, by moving application, amended the said reply to correct the said date from 12.11.2001 to 11.12.2002. The said amendment of reply was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 01.03.2006. At least at that stage, the plaintiff had become aware of the said entry of Rs.70,000/-, but in spite thereof, the amendment application Annexure P-1 was moved four years thereafter, for which there is also no explanation whatsoever. Even the instant revision petition has been filed after delay of five months after the passing of impugned order, for which also there is no explanation. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. October 27, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE