IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5005 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.09.2009 Punjab University and another .....Petitioners versus Balwinder Kaur .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vijay K.Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the Punjabi University, Patiala against the order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been permitted to amend her plaint and challenge the order dated 10.2.1984 whereby the post occupied by her was declared vacant. The amendment is being impugned by the petitioners, primarily on the plea that any challenge to the order dated 10.2.1984 at this belated stage is hopelessly time barred. It is pointed out that the suit was C.R. No.5005 of 2009 (O&M) 2 filed by the respondent-plaintiff on 12.12.2006. There can indeed be no doubt that no amendment of the plaint can be allowed to take a plea, which on the face of it, is barred by limitation, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Ashutosh Chaturvedi versus Prano Devi @ Parani Devi and others, AIR 2008 (SC) 2171” and “Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu versus Sita Ram Saraugi and others, AIR 2007 (SC) 1478”, and recently this Court in Civil Revision No.1010 of 2008 (Kamal Sikka versus The Headmaster, S.R.T.D.A.V. Public School, Bilga), decided on 16.3.2009. However, the distinction sought to be drawn by respondent-plaintiff is that the order dated 10.2.1984 has been disclosed or conveyed to her only after filing of the suit. In other words, her plea is that the limitation would start running from the date of her knowledge. The petitioner-University, on the other hand, submits that the order dated 10.2.1984 was very much in the knowledge of the respondent- plaintiff. Having regard to the rival contentions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.5.2009 permitting the respondent- plaintiff to amend the plaint does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, though it can not be construed to mean as if the objection raised by the respondent-plaintiff that the claim is barred by limitation, has been waived off. The trial Court shall frame an issue as to whether the claim of the respondent-plaintiff is within limitation or not and return a finding on that issue. The petitioner- C.R. No.5005 of 2009 (O&M) 3 University shall be at liberty to invoke appropriate remedy, if so required. This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 02-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE