The central legal point established in the judgment is that introducing a time-barred claim through amendments requires a valid basis, bona fides, and a reasonable explanation for the delay. Complacency and negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, along with the absence of explanation for the delay, can bar them from amending the plaint.

V. S. SIRPURKAR, J.

( 1 ) 1. Leave granted.

( 2 ) JUDGMENT of the High Court passed under Section 115 CPC confirming the order passed by the Additional Munsiff is in challenge in this appeal. The High Court has approved of the amendments which were permitted to be made by the trial court.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein assails both the judgments stating that the said amendment application was liable to be dismissed on the ground that it permitted the plaintiffs to include a time barred claim and secondly it was hopelessly belated and as such the plaintiffs lacked bona fides.

( 4 ) SOME facts would be necessary. Original suit was filed in the year 1986 bearing registration number Eviction Suit No. 11 of 1986 which was filed by Sita Ram Saraugi and some others impleading the present petitioner-defendant Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu. This was a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessities of the plaintiffs. Original defendant Ram Charitra Sahu appeared and raised a plea that he was not a tenant and further that he was in fact an owner having purchased the suit property along with the other part of the property from Banwari Sah and others by sale deed dated 4. 10. 1985 and as such he was the full owner of the entire house including the suit property. In view of these pleadings raised by the defendant, the suit was converted into a Title Suit by the order of the court dated 16. 12. 1988. By subsequent order dated 4. 1. 1991 the suit was renumbered as Title Suit No. 17 of 1991 and the plaintiff was directed to pay advalorem court fees as also to effect the necessary amendments. The plaintiff failed to avail of this opportunity to amend the suit. Eventually, the original defendant died and the present petitioner-defendant has been impleaded for him. The original plaintiff, namely, Sita Ram Saraugi seems to have sold the suit property during the pendency of the suit in favour of Vijay Kumar Yadav and Manju Devi, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein in the year 1997, who were added as the co-plaintiffs by their application dated 22. 5. 2004.

( 5 ) ON 11. 12. 2004 the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendments to the plaint. It was stated in that amendment application that the said amendments have become necessary on account of the plea raised by the defendant regarding his becoming an owner by the registered sale deed dated 4. 10. 1985. It was also suggested that the averments regarding the title of the plaintiffs, reliefs to be claimed relating to the title, description of the area of the land in the suit and the explanation of plaintiffs relating to the sale deeds in favour of the defendant had to be introduced by the amendments. It was also alleged that it was necessary to challenge the sale deed dated 4. 10. 1985 in favour of the defendants and get it declared bogus and not binding against the plaintiffs and that the defendant No. 1 had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit property by that sale deed and to further assert that plaintiff Sita Ram Saraugi had a valid title and possession on the suit land which he transferred validly in favour of Vijay Kumar Yadav and Manju Devi. The plaintiffs also prayed, vide the said amendment application, that the original plaintiff Sita Ram Saraugi was liable to be transposed as a party-defendant.

( 6 ) THIS amendment application was, though strongly opposed by the defendants on various grounds, allowed and as stated earlier, the challenge by the defendants by way of a Civil Revision thereto in the High Court also did not succeed necessitating the present appeal.

( 7 ) SHRI Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-original defendant pointed out that the High Court was in error in confirming the order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment. His main thrust was that the amendment application was trying to introduce a time barred claim regarding the declaration of the