Heard learned counsel for the applicants (defendant nos.1, 2 4 and 5) and the plaintiffs. Other defendants are absent when called.

2. This chamber summons has been taken out by defendant Nos.1,2, 4 and 5 (hereinafer referred to as "the defendants") for amendment of the written statement. The chamber summons is seriously opposed by the plaintiffs interalia on the grounds that the chamber summons is barred by limitation as it is made beyond the period prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and that the chamber summons is not bonafide and has been taken out only for the purpose of delaying the trial. The written statement was filed on 20 November 2006 and the suit was posted for framing of issues in December 2009. After the draft issues were tendered, apprehending that the issues would be framed and the trial would begin, the defendants have taken out this chamber summons for delaying the trial and denying the plaintiff no.1 who is a senior citizen, the fruits of the litigation. Counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that amendment is not at all necessary for deciding the real issues in controversy between the parties and therefore, the chamber summons should be dismissed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submitted that courts always adopt a liberal approach for allowing an amendment of pleadings. The allegation that the chamber summons has been taken out for delaying the trial is not true. The defendants have raised a substantial defence in the original written statement. The necessary facts have already been pleaded. Amendment is sought only for elaborating the facts already mentioned in the written statement and no new grounds are proposed to be added by the amendment. As regards the question of limitation, counsel for the defendants submitted that no period of limitation has been prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963, for making an application for amendment of a pleading. An application for amendment of a pleading can be made at any time. Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to an application (chamber summons) for amendment of a plaint or a written statement.

4. In view of the submissions of the parties, following points arise for my consideration.

(i) Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to an application for amendment of pleadings?

(ii) If yes, whether the present application (chamber summons) is barred by Limitation?

(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment should or should not be allowed?

5. Counsel for the defendants fairly stated that the question whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to an application for amendment of pleadings has not so far been considered by this Court or any other court, save and except by the Allahabad High Court in Didwania and Co.(P) Ltd Vs. Jagdish Narain Indranarain, AIR 1971 Allahabad 407. In my view, the decision in Didwania & Co. also is not directly on the point and the issue is res nova.

6. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period (of limitation) shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act provides that "period of limitation" means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule. Schedule to the Limitation Act which prescribes the period of limitation for suits, appeals and application is divided into three divisions. The first division relates to the suits and consists of Articles 1 to 113 which are divided into 10 parts. The second division relates to appeals and consists of Articles 114 to 117. The third division relates to applications and is divided into two parts. Part-1 speaks of application in specified cases and consists of Articles 118 to 136. Part-2 of the third division consists of only one article viz. Article 137 whi