Amendments to pleadings are not permissible if they are barred by limitation, emphasizing the importance of timely legal actions, as established in relevant Supreme Court authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition is directed against the order dated 18.02.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P., vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for the amendment of the plaint filed by the respondents (plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court) was allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that the cancellation of Lease Deed No. 2582 /2018 dated 03.12.2018, by Akash, defendant No.2 is illegal, Exchange Deed dated 07.01.2019 executed on the strength of the Cancellation Deed No. 60/2019 is wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. A consequential decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought.

3. Subsequently, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was filed by the plaintiffs, pleading that as per the written statement filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs got the registered Lease Deed No. 761 of 2017 dated 24.04.2017. Lease Deed No. 2144 of 2013 dated 11.11.2013, Rectification Deed No. 1792/2014 dated 25.08.2014 and Lease Deed No. 2275/2015 dated 10.09.2015 cancelled and revoked without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs. The Sub-Registrar was not competent to cancel the registered Lease Deed. Such a Deed can only be cancelled by a Civil Court. The Lease Deed was executed by defendant No.2, who is the son of the Sub-Registrar, Solan. Hence a prayer was made that Lease Deed No. 2275/2015, dated 10.09.2015 executed by Om Prakash be declared null and void.

4. The application was opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, locus standi and cause of action and the proposed amendment being barred by limitation. It was asserted that plaintiffs have failed to provide any explanation as to why the amendment could not be sought earlier despite the exercise of due diligence. No amendment can be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless the party shows that such an amendment could not have been sought despite the exercise of due diligence. The Lease Deed was executed on 10.09.2015 and the suit was filed in February 2019. A notice was served by defendants No. 3 and 4 upon the plaintiffs on 27.03.2019, which was received by the plaintiffs on 30.03.2019. The Cancellation Deed No. 2075/2015 was mentioned in it. Defendants No. 3 and, 4 filed a Civil Suit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act against the plaintiffs, which is pending adjudication. Many cases are pending between the parties and Lease Deed No. 2075/2015 was mentioned in every litigation. The proposed amendment is barred by limitation and cannot be allowed; therefore, it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

5. Learned Trial Court held that the amendment in the pleadings of the parties is to be allowed liberally. The present amendment will not cause any prejudice to the defendants. The procedural law is only a handmaid of justice and not its mistress. The amendment will be helpful in determining the real controversy between the parties. Therefore, the application was allowed.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present petition has been