An amendment to a pleading that is necessary to cure a defect in the pleading and does not introduce a new cause of action is not barred by limitation.

( 1 ) AN application under Or. 6, R. 17 of the C. P. C. filed at a very late stage having been dismissed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, by an order dt. June 16, 1984, the plaintiff has preferred the present revisional application.

( 2 ) THE suit was instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract for sale of a flat at Karunamoyee Housing Estate, Salt Lake City, Calcutta. In drawing up the plaint it is quite evident that the plaintiff overlooked the amended provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. Though the claim for specific performance was really based on implied pleadings envisaged by the said clause, there was no express pleading to the effect that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. Parties led evidence. Plaintiff too led evidence on the point and he was subjected to cross-examination. At the stage of argument the aforesaid defect in the pleading was brought home to the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for an amendment to incorporate the following additional pleading to the plaint, namely :-"the plaintiff was and/or is ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract to be performed by him and the plaintiff is also ready and willing to purchase the said flat from the defendants. "

( 3 ) THIS prayer for amendment was strongly contested by the defendants. On such contest the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, has rejected the prayer for amendment relying upon a single Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Singhasan Choubey v. Sudama Prasad Sah, AIR 1982 Pat 200. According to the learned Judge, the pleading proposed to be introduced by the amendment was an essential part of the pleading and since it was not incorporated in the original plaint, he cannot now be allowed to add that to the pleading because by lapse of time a valuable right has accrued to the defendants. The correctness of the view thus taken by the learned Judge is the subject-matter of challenge before us in the present revisional application.

( 4 ) MR. Matilal appearing in support of the revisional application has contended that though the prayer for amendment was made at a late stage, the amendment sought for was really of a formal nature intended to remove a patent defect in the pleading which was not in any way inconsistent with the case originally pleaded nor was it in any way a new case. Mr. Matilal has strongly disputed the correctness of the view taken by the learned Judge that the amendment, if allowed, will take away any vested right of the defendants.

( 5 ) MR. Gupta, who is appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 has strongly contested the points thus raised by Mr. Matilal. According to Mr. Gupta, the amendment, if allowed, would introduce a new cause of action, and a suit on the said new cause of action already being barred, should not be allowed. Repeated attempts were made by Mr. Gupta to refer to us to the evidence already recorded in the suit to indicate that the plaintiff was not really ready and willing at the time of filing of the suit to perform his part of the contract so that the amendment now proposed contrary to the said fact will be highly unjustified. Reliance was placed by Mr. Gupta on three decisions. Two of the decisions have already been referred to by the learned Judge in the trial Court. These are M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484, and Ram Singhasan Choubey v. Sudama Prasad Sah, AIR 1982 Pat 200. The other decision relied on by Mr. Gupta is not on the point of amendment but is with regard to the effect of non-fulfilment of the provisions of Section 16 (c), that is, the case of Manik Lal Seal v. K. P. Choudhury, AIR 1976 Cal 115. So far as the last of these cases referred to and relied on by Mr. Gupta is concerned, it may be pointed out that there is no scope for any di