Amendment in plaint ought to have been allowed by trial court.

(Revision against the order dated 28.01.2004 made in I.A.No.1860 of 2003 in O.S.No.579 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Udumalpet.)

Thiru Alankadu Immudi Ahora Dharma Sivachariar Aiyra Vaisya Madam, petitioner herein, filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of possession, damages and mesne profits in the year 1998. Respondent filed a written statement in the year 2000, denying the title of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint, claiming the relief of declaration of title over the suit property as well. The said application was opposed by the respondent/defendant, on the ground that it was barred by limitation, as the application was filed after three years. Accepting the said objection, the trial Court dismissed the application on 28.01.2004. Hence, this revision by the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, delay in filing the application cannot be a ground for rejecting the application at the threshold and the amendment seeking for declaration is quite essential for complete and effective adjudication of dispute between the parties, as the proposed amendment is to add consequential relief to the main relief.

3. Justifying the order impugned, learned counsel for the respondent would submit on the strength of the decision reported in 2001 (4) CTC 174 (TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD v. TAMIL NADU ALLOY FOUNDRY CO.LTD.), rendered by this Court, that the application for amendment seeking for new relief should have been filed within the period of limitation, namely, three years and, as such, the order impugned is valid.

4. Substantiating his plea, learned counsel for the petitioner would cite the following judgments :

(i) 1997 (I) CTC 292 (K.S.ALAGARSAMY v. P.NATARAJAN AND ANOTHER);

(ii) 1997 (II) CTC 12 (MUTHAMMAL v. THAMBURATI AND 6 OTHERS);

(iii) 1998 (I) CTC 529 (KALAVATHI v. CHITRA);

(iv) 2003 (2) L.W.21 (SAMPATH KUMAR v. AYYAKANNU AND ANOTHER); and

(v) 2004 (6) SUPREME COURT CASES 415 (PANKAJA AND ANOTHER v. YELLAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS)

5. A perusal of the above judgments could set forth the following guidelines, while dealing with an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking for amendment of the prayer :

(1) The general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred.

(2) It is well recognized that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation.

(3) The object of Courts and rules of procedures is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes. Further, a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended.

(4) Even though the amendment sought to be made is subject to law of limitation, if the cause of action is not going to be changed, it is open to the affected party to take necessary steps for amendment of the plaint. No doubt, no amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party of lapse of time.

(5) For merely allowing an application for amendment, there is no adjudication of the merits of the amended pleas introduced that the merits of the amended pleas have got to be adjudicated upon after allowing the opposite side to put-forth additional pleadings in answer to the same and that certainly the additional pleadings may take in also the plea of bar of limitation.

(6) By allowing the amendment, no injury or injustice is caused to the other side. No jurisdictional error is also involved in this case be