Can an application seeking an amendment for incorporating a relief, which is different from the relief already sought for in the original plaint, be declined merely on the ground that the relief sought for is time barred as on the date of the amendment application, is the short question to be decided here.

2. Exhibit P5 order passed by the court below in I.A.No.3861 of 2012 in O.S.No.535 of 2010 is under challenge. Through the said order, the court below has allowed the amendment sought for by the plaintiff. The suit, as it originally stands, is one for a declaration that the General Power of Attorney No.159 of 1996 of the Kozhikode Sub Registry, Release Deed No.1166 of 2007 of the Kozhikode Sub Registry, and the Jenmom Assignment Deed No.4333 of 2008 of the Koduvally Sub Registry, are null and void. As relief No.(ii), a decree of perpetual injunction has also been sought for.

3. Paragraph 11 of the plaint deals with the cause of action for the suit as on 01.10.2008 on which date the plaintiff came to know of the execution of Release Deed No.1166 of 2007 of the Kozhikode Sub Registry, by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, on 27.06.2010 on which date the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were entertaining an idea to execute further conveyance relating to plaint A schedule property, and thereafter.

4. Defendants filed Exhibit P2 written statement by which the maintainability of the suit has been seriously challenged. In paragraph 12, as items `a' to `i', the grounds of challenge regarding the maintainability of the suit are shown. Ground `i' reads:

"i. As relief of recovery of possession and cancellation of documents are not prayed for in order to avoid payment of proper court fee, suit is liable to be dismissed for improper valuation."

5. It seems that the plaintiff has filed Exhibit P3 I.A. before the court below for getting the plaint amended, on the ground that on a perusal of the plaint, it could be seen that some typographical errors and omissions were crept in the plaint and on a further ground that the defendants have raised a plea that the relief of declaration sought for cannot be granted in the absence of a relief for the cancellation of the said documents. These are precisely the two grounds on which the amendments noted as Items `i' to `viii' were sought for. The court below, after hearing both sides, allowed the I.A. through Exhibit P5 order.

6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. T. Sethumadhavan for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer for the respondents.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that at any stretch of imagination, the court below ought not to have allowed Exhibit P3 mainly on the ground that as on the date of filing of Exhibit P3, a fresh suit for the said relief sought though the amendment could not have been filed, as such a suit would be barred by limitation. It is further argued that Exhibit P3, after such a relief, had become time barred.

8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has argued that amendments sought for as item numbers `i' to `vi' are merely the matters relating to some typographical errors and grammatical mistakes. Item `vii' is by way of incorporation of a fresh relief as (iia) in the plaint as "cancelling the registered Release Deed No.1166 of 2007 of the SRO, Kozhikode and the registered Jenmom Assignment Deed No.4333 of 2008 of SRO, Koduvally." Item `viii' is an addition of Item No.(iia) in the valuation portion as "Valuation for relief `iia' under Section 40 of the KCF & SV Act:Rs.1,50,000.00."

9. It seems that the challenge is with regard to items `vii' and `viii' noted above. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, if the respondents are permitted to amend the plaint by incorporating item `vii' relief as relief `iia', it would be as good as taking away the legal right of the defendants to challenge such a relief based on the law of limitation. It is