JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/non-objector/non-claimant (for brevity, “the petitioner”) against the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the learned Commercial Court No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur (for brevity, “the learned Commercial Court”) in Objection Application No.606/2019 whereby, a civil misc. application No.105/2021 filed by the respondent/objector/claimant (for brevity, “the claimant”) seeking leave to raise additional grounds in support of the Objection Application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, “the Act of 1996”) has been allowed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that an agreement dated 06.06.2012 was entered into between the parties for supply of notified seeds by the claimant to the petitioner. Alleging nonpayment of the price of the seeds supplied, the claimant raised an arbitral dispute wherein, its claim came to be rejected by the learned Arbitrator vide award dated 29.07.2019 on the ground of it being barred by limitation, aggrieved whereof, the claimant filed an Objection Application No.606/2019 under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. During its pendency, it filed an application No.105/2021 seeking leave to raise additional grounds in support of the Objection Application which has been allowed by the learned Commercial Court vide order impugned dated 04.12.2021.

3. Assailing the order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Commercial Court erred in failing to appreciate that without seeking amendment in the memo of Objection Application, the application filed by the claimant for leave to raise additional grounds was not maintainable. Inviting attention of this Court towards the additional grounds permitted to be raised and the contents of the claim petition, learned Senior Counsel submitted that thereby, the claimant has altered the cause of action totally which is impermissible in the eye of law. Referring to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the additional grounds could not have been permitted to be raised being inconsistent with the pleadings in the claim petition. He submitted that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, “the Act of 1963”), the Court can consider only the averments made in the plaint/claim to ascertain as to whether it is within the period of limitation and the pleadings/defence raised by the defendant/non-claimant cannot be considered at all for this purpose. Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the additional grounds sought to be raised by the claimant fly in the face of Clause-27 of the agreement dated 06.06.2012 which provides for cause of action and starting point of limitation. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon following judgments:-

1. Ma. Shwe Mya Vs. Maung Mo Hnaung: AIR 1922 PC 249

2. T. L. Muddukrishana & Anr. Vs. Lalitha Ramchandra Rao (Smt.): (1997) 2 SCC 611

3. Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors.: (2021) 9 SCC 99

4. State of Maharashtra Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.: (2010) 4 SCC 518

5. Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr.: (2020) 17 SCC 260

6. Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through LRs. Vs. S.K. Sarwagi And Company Private Limited & Another: (2008) 14 SCC 364

4. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the learned Commercial Court be quashed and set aside and CMNC No.105/2021 filed by the claimant be dismissed.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the claimant would submit that the learned Commercial Court did not err in allowing the application filed by it seeking leave of the Court to raise additional grounds in support of the objection application. Inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of civil miscellaneous application filed by the claimant, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it contains additional grounds based only on the admitted fac