The power to allow an amendment is wide and should be exercised in the interest of justice, even if the relief sought is apparently time-barred. The purpose of allowing amendments is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to minimize injustice or prejudice to the other party.

JUDGMENT :

A suit for injunction of the year 2016 is sought to be amended as one for recovery of money as well, in the year 2023. By Ext.P8 order, the same was allowed, holding that the dispute is between the same parties, with respect to the same subject matter and that the amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit. As regards the objection that the amended claim is barred by law of limitation, the learned Sub Judge found that Ext.P4 order of the High Court reserved a right in favour of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) to agitate his claim for money. Besides, it was also found that the petitioner was waiting on the basis of an agreement arrived at between the parties in the aegis of the Minister for Agriculture recorded in the Minutes of Meeting (MoM) dated 13.01.2016; and the question whether the said period is liable to be excluded and whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action for filing the suit for recovery of money can be decided only after evidence. The aggrieved second defendant is the petitioner herein.

2. Heard Sri. Ashok Anchalia and Sri. John Joseph Vettikad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T.N. Manoj, learned counsel for the first respondent, Sri. Joseph M.P., learned counsel for the second respondent, Sri. Nithin George, learned counsel for the third respondent and Sri. B. Premod, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/second defendant essentially stressed on the contention that the claim for recovery of money is awfully barred by the law of limitation. Such an amendment takes away a valuable defence available to the petitioner/second defendant and hence cannot be allowed, is the submission made. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this regard.

(i) K. Raheja Constructions Limited and Another v. Alliance Ministries and Others [(1995) (suppl.) 3 SCC 17]

(ii) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another [(2022) SCC online SC 1128]

and a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in

(iii) Kalpana v. Premkumar [FAO (RO) No.100/2013], [ILR 2014 (3) Kerala 708].

4. Based on facts, it was submitted that the suit was filed on 26.02.2016 and the written statement was filed as early as on 05.12.2016. However, Ext.P5 application for amendment was preferred only on 24.02.2023, that is after lapse of about seven years. The present relief sought for recovery of money - sought to be incorporated by amendment - is therefore, hopelessly barred by the law of limitation, is the submission made.

5. Another aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the extensive nature of the amendment sought for. It was pointed out that as many as 34 additional paragraphs is sought to be incorporated to the plaint by the amendment. Besides, the existing reliefs were sought to be substituted by new reliefs. The amendment sought for, changes the nature and character of the suit, is the third bone of contention to attack Ext.P8 order. It was contended that the plaintiff, by virtue of the subject amendment, was attempting to set up a new case, with a new cause of action and a new relief, which cannot be allowed by any yardstick, as settled by a series of decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court.

6. It was also submitted that the amendment sought for was not bonafide and that it causes serious prejudice to the petitioner, which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.

7. As regards Ext.P4 order of this Court in W.P.(C)No.28814/2022, which reserved the first respondent's right to agitate his grievance with respect to non-payment of the outstanding dues, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner herein was not made a party in the said writ petition. It was then contended that the amendment sought for was against the findings in Ext.P7 order of the Additional District Judge, Irinjalakkuda in C.M.A.No.78/2016, which was carried by the first respondent her