1. This Revision is preferred by the 1st defendant in the Suit, calling in question the orders passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Khamman in I.A. No.111 of 2010 filed in O.S. No.15 of 2007, instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 herein.

2. O.S. No.15 of 2007 was instituted seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23-09-2006 entered into by and between these parties. Subsequent to the institution of the Suit, defendants 2 to 6 got impleaded therein resisting the intended sale by the 1st defendant on the ground that it is a joint family property. I.A. No.111 of 2010 was moved hence, seeking amendment of the plaint for introduction of an alternative relief for repayment of the advance sale price of Rs.3,60,000/- received by the petitioner herein together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of receipt of the said money till the date of repayment. The said I.A., was resisted on variety of grounds including that the claim for refund of the advance sale consideration amount was barred by limitation. Finding that the nature of amendment sought for, does not result in altering the nature of the cause in the Suit itself and since the relief sought for is only an alternative relief, the learned I Additional District Judge, Khamman, by his order dated 03-02-2011 allowed the said amendment application.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri J.P. Srikanth would strenuously contend that the alternative relief of refund of Rs.3,60,000/-together with interest @ 12% thereon is sought for more than three years after the Suit is filed, i.e., on 19-04-2007, therefore, it is clearly barred by limitation. Further, the relief of refund is very much available to the plaintiffs to seek from the very inception. Having, thus, not prayed for such a relief at the inception, the Application ought to have been dismissed. Further, the alternative relief now prayed for will cause prejudice to the petitioner-1st defendant in the Suit.

4. Per contra, Sri Hari Sreedhar, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 herein would submit that all the relevant facts have been pleaded in the Suit clearly. The agreement of sale dated 23-09-2006, in clear and categoric terms, acknowledged the receipt of advance payment of Rs.3,60,000/- by the 1st defendant in the Suit. Hence, the amendment for introduction of an alternative relief is not going to either change the cause of action or would cause any prejudice, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sridhar has placed strong reliance upon the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in BABU LAL v. M/S HAZARI LAL KISHORI LAL (AIR 1982 SC 818).

5. The principles relating to the amendment of the pleadings have been illustrated by Sarkar, J, in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in A.K. GUPTA & SONS LIMITED v. DAMODAR VALLY CORPORATION (AIR 1967 SC 96), in the following words:

“7. It is not in dispute that at the date of the application for amendment, a suit for a money claim under the contract was barred. The general rule no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred : Weldon v. Neale, (1887) 19 QBD 394. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation: see Charan Das v. Amir Khan, 47 Ind App 255 (AIR 1921 PC 50) and L.J. Leach and Co Ltd v. Jardine Skinner and Co., 1957 SCR 438 (AIR 1957 SC 357).

8. The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v Smith, (1884) 26 Ch D 700 (710-711) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in sub