Amendments to a plaint should not be automatically rejected due to limitations; courts must consider the validity and justification of the claims made post-filing.

JUDGMENT:

1. All the above matters are taken up for final disposal as both the orders challenged in the Revision Applications and in the Writ Petitions are arising out of the same suit between same parties. The Writ Petitions are basically challenging the order of learned trial Court allowing the amendment application. The revision applications are basically challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court thereby rejecting applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 and defendant No.3 as they arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Civil Revision Application No.40 of 2016 is filed by the defendant No.3 challenging the order dated 19/08/2016 of the learned trial Court by which the application filed by the defence including that of defendant No.3 vide Exhibits 55 and 58 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were rejected. Civil Revision Appeal No.26 of 2017 is filed by original defendants No.1 and 2 thereby challenging the same order dated 19/08/2016 challenging the dismissal of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC .

4. Writ Petition No.148 of 2017 is filed by original defendant No.3 whereas Writ Petition No.193 of 2017 is filed by original defendants No.1 and 2 thereby challenging the order dated 06/05/2016 whereby learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint.

5. Heard Shri S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Neha Kholkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant/Petitioner and Shri Anthony Joe D'Silva with Ms. K Gracias, learned Advocates for Respondent No.1 in Civil Revision Application No.40 of 2016 with Writ Petition No.148 of 2017. Shri V.A. Lawande with Shri P. Redkar, learned Advocates for the Applicants/Petitioners, and Shri Anthony Joe D'Silva with Ms. K Gracias, learned Advocates for Respondent No.1 in Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2017 with Writ Petition No.193 of 2017.

6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I have perused the record and more specifically the impugned orders.

7. Shri Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for original defendant No.3 in the Revision Application as well as in the Writ Petition submitted that first of all amendment itself is time barred and the prayers in the said amendment could not have been allowed to be amended to the suit. He would submit that the plaint itself needs to be rejected as the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff apart from declaration that he is the Director of the company, cannot be granted as even if plaintiff is considered as a Director, he cannot be declared as owner of the properties belonging to the company.He would submit that the main prayer in the suit is to declare the plaintiff as owner of the properties of the company and relief of declaration of him being a Director is only consequential. If the entire reliefs along with the pleadings in the plaint are considered the plaint needs to be rejected as no such relief could be granted to the plaintiff. Shri Kantak then would submit that if the amendment is rejected and more specifically the amended prayer clauses, the defendant No.3 would not have any grievance as such amendment prayer clauses are clearly barred by law of limitation. He further submitted that in the written statements filed by defendants No.1 and 2 in the month of July 2004, they disclosed that the shed and the plot of the company was disposed of vide Sale Deed dated 09/03/2004 in favour of defendant No.3 and that too wit