JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 1st March, 2002, passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that the facts which are sought to be introduced by way of amendment and the relief based on such facts having been barred by law of limitation, the petitioner is not entitled to amend the plaint as proposed by the petitioner.

3. While challenging the impugned order, it was sought to be contended that issue of limitation can very well be raised in the suit itself and the amendment could not have been refused on that count in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others)1, reported in 2001(2) S.C.C. 472.

4. Undisputedly, the suit is for partition of the property filed by the co-owner. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner has sought to add two more properties to be the subject-matter of partition and certain facts relating to a deed of partition, dated 6th January, 1982 and for relief for declaration that the sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document