The court reinforced that amendments post-trial initiation are disallowed if barred by limitation, emphasizing the necessity for due diligence in raising claims at the appropriate stage.

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioners (plaintiffs before learned Trial Court) have filed the present petition against the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan (learned Trial Court), vide which the application seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed. (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 facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that sale deed No.241 dated 04.04.2007 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Nahan and mutation No.250 dated 30.08.2016 are a result of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation and without consideration and. not binding on the rights, title and interest of the plaintiffs. A declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land and a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land or forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs was also sought. It was asserted that Prem Singh, father of the plaintiffs, was the owner in possession of the suit land. He executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs on 11.07.2006. He died on 15.09.2007. The defendant is a stranger and is interfering with the suit land without any right to do so. The defendant got a mutation of inheritance recorded in his favour in the absence of the plaintiffs. The defendant, his son and other persons, visited the suit land on 15.09.2016 and disclosed that 5 bighas of land were sold on 04.04.2007, vide sale deed No.241 registered in the ofice of Sub- Registrar, Nahan. A mutation No.250 dated 30.08.2016 was also attested. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement-cum-counter claim. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the written statement to the counter-claim. It was asserted that the defendant claimed to be the purchaser of the specific property. He also sought the possession of the property in the counter-claim. The plaintiff denied the claim of the defendant. When the plaintiff was preparing the case for cross-examination, a glaring fact came to his notice that an alternative plea in the written statement to the counter-claim regarding the preferential right of the plaintiffs to re-purchase the suit land was not taken, hence, the amendment was sought to amend the written statement to the counter-claim to plead the facts and seek a relief of preferential right to purchase the suit land.

4. The application was opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack of cause of action, the application being an abuse of the process of the Court and the application being mala fide. The contents of the application were denied on merits; however, the filing of the suit and written statement-cum-counter-claim were not disputed. It was asserted that the defendant filed the written statement and the counter-claim on 28.02.2018. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment on 18.07.2019 to amend the written statement to incorporate the fact that the sale deed was without consideration. This application was allowed as not oppos