IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1010 of 2008 Date of decision:16.03.2009 Kamal Sikka ...Petitioner versus The Headmaster, S.R.T.D.A.V. Public School, Bilga, ...Respondents District Jalandhar and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against dismissal of a petition for amendment and the pleadings on the ground that purported amendment was beyond the period of limitation. 2. The cause of action in the suit was an alleged wrongful termination from service on 01.04.2001. The suit was filed for a declaration that the order of termination was illegal and void and for other consequential reliefs. The suit had been instituted on 28.08.2001. An application for amendment was filed including the prayer for damages for wrongful termination. The Court below dismissed it finding that the amendment sought for in the petition was beyond the period of limitation from when the cause of action arose. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decisions where under Section 21 of the said Act, there is a power vested Civil Revision No.1010 of 2008 - 2 - in a Court to allow for damages. The reference to the said section in this case is misplaced, since a suit for specific performance of an agreement shall be accompanied with a prayer for damages either as an alternative relief or a substantive relief along with the main relief in suit. The statute itself recognizes the power of the Court to allow for amendment during any stage of the proceedings. This section cannot be applied in a case where the plaintiff sues for damages for wrongful termination. The amendment which will resolve the controversy between the parties shall be ordinarily entertained unless such amendment deflects from the original cause of action or when the defendant shall be put to a serious disadvantage. The serious disadvantage that the law contemplates includes a plea of limitation. The several decisions referred to by the learned counsel referring to general prepositions that a mere delay cannot defeat the right of a plaintiff to bring an amendment or when the issue on limitation itself is a mixed question of fact and law and that amendment could be brought leaving the parties to adduce evidence for a final adjudication on the issue of limitation are not simply applicable. A claim for damages for wrongful termination is not a mixed question of law and fact, but attracts a direct application of the provision under the provisions of the Limitation Act. 4. The order passed by the Court below suffers from no vice that calls for intervention in revision. 5. Revision is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.03.2009 sanjeev