Amendments to pleadings are permitted unless they change the suit's nature or introduce time-barred claims, supporting effective adjudication and justice.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner defendant (M/s Kisco Castings (India) Limited) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner-defendant’) assails the order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-8), passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs M/s Sunder Steel Products and Sunder Pal Goyal, partner of M/s Sunder Steel Products (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondents-plaintiffs’) for amendment of the plaint was allowed.

2(i). The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,63,276 (Annexure P-1) was instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs against the petitioner-defendant stating the amount to be outstanding as balance price of material purchased by the petitioner-defendant from the respondents-plaintiffs. The suit was opposed by the petitioner-defendant by way of written statement (Annexure P-2). A suit for recovery had also been initiated by the petitioner-defendant against the respondents-plaintiffs (Annexure P-3) which had been opposed by the respondents-plaintiffs by way of written statement (Annexure P-4).

2(ii). During the pendency of the present suit, the respondents-plaintiffs preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P- 5), seeking amendment of the plaint. Amendment was sought in the heading and paragraphs 1, 3, 9, 12 as also in the prayer. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-7) in which it was stated that the persons sought to be impleaded as defendants vide the amendment were not in fact partners of the petitioner-defendant and time barred claims were being sought to be introduced by way of the proposed amendments.

2(iii) The application for amendment was allowed vide order dated 13.02.2024, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

4(i). Mr. Gaurav Datta, learned counsel representing the petitioner-defendant vehementaly submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable, for, it permitted introduction of time barred claims in the plaint and that the persons now sought to be impleaded as defendants were in fact never the partners of the firm. Learned counsel referred to the original plaint, the written statement, the amendments sought to be made as depicted in the application for amendment, reply filed thereto and the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4(ii). It was also submitted that as per Section 12-A of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015, efforts for settlement by way of mediation are mandatory and by allowing the amendment, the said provision had been bypassed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court of India in South Konkan Distilleries and another versus Prabhakar Gajanan Naik , (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 632, Basavaraj versus Indira and others , 2024 (4) RCR (Civil) 115, Khatri Hotels Private Limited and another versus Union of India and another , 2012(3) Land L.R. 539 (SC)] : (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 126 and Dahiben versus Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and others, (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366.

5. On the other hand, Sh. Rakesh Chopra, learned counsel representing the respondents- plaintiffs submitted, with equal vehemence, that the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid and, therefore does not call for any interference. Reference by Sh. Rakesh Chopra was also made to the original plaint, the written statement, the application for amendment and the reply there to. As regards impleading new parties and the question of limitation, it was submitted that all these shall b