An amendment to a plaint that does not introduce a new cause of action or cause prejudice to the defendant can be allowed even if it is barred by limitation.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order allowing an amendment to the plaint sought on behalf of the plaintiff by adding para. 5 (a) as under: "the plaintiff states that the amounts of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 12,000 respectively were lent to the defendants on the basis of an application filed by them for a loan and also on the basis of the vouchers executed by them for receiving the same. After payments of the amounts, necessary entries are also made in the accounts and thereafter the Hundies were taken. The defendants have also admitted the receipt of the money in the written statement. The plaintiff states that on the basis of these facts, he is entitled to a decree on the original cause of action of payment and also on the basis of the admission contained in the written statement". Add. the words in para. 9 after the words "cause of action for the suit arose on 7th september, 1972". "when the defendants made an application to the plaintiff Corporation for sanction of a loan and thereafter received the money and executed the voucher and thereafter when they executed the Hundi. the words in the same para. 9 after the words: "when the defendants made an application to the plaintiff-Corporation for sanction of a loan and thereafter received the money and executed the voucher and thereafter they executed the Hundi". The challenge is based on the ground that it introduces a new cause of action and also cause prejudice to the case of defendant. Since on the date of the amendment the proposed amendment is barred by limitation such amendment is not contemplated, the provisions enacted under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts, may briefly be noticed. As per para. 3 of the plaint the claim is: "the plaintiff herein is a registered firm at anantapur carrying on business in money lending. The defendants herein have borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,000 in cash from the plaintiff-Corporation on 7th September, 1972 under T. B. D. Loan No. 2223 of 1972-73 and executed a Hundi in favour of the corporation plaintiff. . . . . . . . . . . In para. 4 it is stated thus: "the same defendants again borrowed another sum of RS -. 12,000 on 8th September, 1972 under T. B. D. No. 2224 of 1972-73 in cash from the plaintiff-Corporation and executed a Hundi in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation. In para. 9 it is stated thus: "cause of action for the suit arose on 7th september, 1972 when the defendants executed the Hundi for borrowing cash of rs. 8,000 under T. B. D. No. 2223 of 1972-73 and on 8th September, 1972 when they again borrowed amount in a sum of rs. 12,000 and executed a Hundi T. B. D. No. 2224 of 1972-73 that on 8th October, 1974 when the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendants. . . . . . . . . .

( 3 ) IN the written statement in para. 3 it is. averred: "the allegation that these defendants borrowed Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 12,000 on 7th september, 1972 and 8th September, 1972 is not correct. For about two years prior to 1972, there have been transactions between the plaintiff and these defendants. These defendants have paid heavy interest on all the previous occasions and have been renewing the original debt borrowed. The allegation that the two hundies referred to in the plaint are for cash consideration is not correct. They are in renewal of old transactions".

( 4 ) THEREAFTER I. A. No. 360 of 1978 was. filed for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, and the proposed amendment is as extracted already above.

( 5 ) SRI Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied on the following decisions in support of his contention. In C. R. P. No. 3 of 1975 dated 12th December, 1975 Justice muktadar in analogous circumstances held: "in the instant case, clearly, the suit was filed on the basis of a Hundi and inserting the original agreement as another cause of action would be surely not permissible. However, of the amendment is allowed, it would mean that the plaintiff has filed the suit on the b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document