D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against the order dated 20-11-1996 passed by the 10th Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior whereby application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission to raise certain factual and legal pleas has been rejected.

( 2 ) THE facts mentioned below would explain the cause for prefering this revision by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs' case, the premises in suit which was initially open plot inside the Bada named 'mahadik Sahab Ka Bada' in Dal Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior was given on rent to the Predecessor-in-title of the defendants by Shakuntala Devi, predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, for the business of grain and oil-seed under a rent note executed as back as on 8-12-1953. It is not in dispute that there exists a mortgage deed executed on 14-7-1955 between the deceased landlady and the tenant in which the tenanted premises in suit were mortgaged by the landlady in favour of the tenant for a mortgage money of Rs. 2000/- with an agreement that the mortgage would be renewed after three years and till then the interest payable on the mortgage money shall be adjusted from the rent payable by the tenant to the landlady.

( 3 ) AFTER death of Shakuntala Devi, the present plaintiffs as heirs and legal representatives of the landlady, served a legal notice dated 22-1-1986 on the tenants informing that they are willing to pay back the loan of Rs. 2000/- under the mortgage deed to redeem the tenanted premises and seek eviction of the tenants on the ground of their personal need.

( 4 ) TO the above legal notice sent by the plaintiffs, the defendants sent a reply through their Advocate denying existence of any transaction of mortgage between the parties and claimed title and possession of the suit premises in themselves. After the above reply of the defendants, the plaintiffs served a second legal notice on 20-6-1986 demanding arrears of rent due from past 8 to 10 years and seeking eviction of the defendants on the ground of their (plaintiffs') personal need. After exchange of the above notices, the plaintiffs as heirs of deceased landlady Shakuntala Devi filed their suit simpliciter on the alleged relationship between them of landlords and tenants.

( 5 ) THE tenants in their written statement took a plea in which they admitted existence of a transaction of mortgage in writing between them, but pleaded that such a transaction of mortgage was sham and colourable. According to the defendants, in fact the suit premises were sold to their predecessor-in-title on which they are in possession as owners.

( 6 ) AFTER the abovementioned plea based on the mortgage having been raised by the defendants in their written statement, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. whereby they sought permission to plead that in the alternative, for seeking eviction of the tenants from the suit premises, they are willing to pay the mortgage money and redeem the mortgaged property.

( 7 ) THE application for amendment of the plaint has been strongly opposed by the defendants mainly on the ground that on the date of proposed amendment the suit for redemption of the mortgage was barred by time under Art. 61 of the Limitation Act, treating the commencement of period of limitation on expiry of three years fixed under the terms of the mortgage deed for redemption. The mortgage deed was executed on 14-7-1955 in which three years period was agreed for redemption and taking the commencement of limitation from 1988, the proposed amendment for such relief claimed by application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. filed on 20-7-1996 is said to be barred by limitation under Art. 61 (a) of the Limitation Act. On behalf of the defendants it is also submitted that the Court should not allow conversion of a suit based on relationship of landlord and tenant into a suit for redemption of the mortgage as there are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document