IMPORTANT POINT
Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to an interlocutory application made during pendency of suit for amendment of Written Statement.

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.—Admit. By consent of Counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. A Chamber Summons was moved before the Learned Single Judge for amending a written statement. The Learned Single Judge held by an order dated 7 December 2011 that an application for amendment of a written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 and Article 137of the Schedule which applies to all applications made to a civil court would include an application for amendment of pleadings. The Learned Single Judge held that the right to apply for amendment of the written statement in this case arose on the day following the day on which the written statement was filed, on the ground that the amendment did not seek to bring on record new facts, but only an explanation regarding existing facts. Since the Chamber Summons was filed beyond a period of three years of the day on which the right to apply was held to have arisen, it was dismissed as being barred by limitation. However, the Learned Single Judge noted that but for the bar of limitation, he would have allowed the Chamber Summons for amendment. The Defendants are in appeal against the order rejecting the Chamber Summons. The Plaintiffs have filed Cross- objections against that part of the order by which the Learned Single Judge held that but for the bar of limitation, he would have allowed the amendment.

3. The First and Second Respondents have instituted a suit seeking (i) A declaration that the Appellants and the Third Respondent are only pledgees and not owners in respect of 3,07,650 shares of Sesa Goa Ltd. (the Fourteenth Defendant and Respondent); (ii) A direction for delivery and handing over of the shares; (iii) A declaration of ownership in respect of certain immovable property and a direction to deliver up for cancellation an agreement for sale dated 26 September 1997. In the suit which was instituted before this Court in 1998, an amendment of the plaint was allowed on 31 January 2006. The written statement has been filed by the Appellants on 20 November 2006. The Chamber Summons for amendment of the written statement was filed on or about 19 January 2010. The Learned Single Judge framed the following points for consideration on the Chamber Summons:

“(i) Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to an application for amendment of pleadings?

(ii) If yes, whether the present application (chamber summons) is barred by Limitation?

(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment should or should not be allowed?”

In the view of the Learned Single Judge, Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to an application for amendment of pleadings. The Learned Single Judge held that though Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contemplates an amendment at any stage of the proceedings, the words “any stage” only denote that an application for amendment can be filed before or after the framing of issues and before or after the commencement of the trial or even after conclusion of the trial. The Court took the view that every application to a civil court would be governed by Article 137 and an application for amendment would, therefore, have to meet the requirement of being filed within a period of three years from when the right to apply accrues. Since in the present case, the amendment was clarificatory, the Learned Single Judge held that the right to apply accrued on 21 November 2006 which was the day after the Written Statement was filed and the Chamber Summons which was taken out on 19 January 2010 was after a lapse of three years and was therefore barred by limitation. However, the Learned Single Judge on the third point which was framed, held that but for the bar of limitation, the Court would have allowed the amendment.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that: (i) The power which is vested in the court to allo