Limitation for a plaint amendment seeking alternative relief begins upon the dismissal of the main plea, permitting subsequent application within a defined timeframe.

1. In a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner herein, he had taken out an application seeking for amending the plaint by introducing an alternative relief for refund of the sale advance amount. The said application came to be dismissed on the main ground that, such a plea is barred by limitation. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. The proviso to S.22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 empowers the Court to entertain an application for amendment of the plaint seeking for alternative relief for refund of the advance amount at any stage of the proceedings.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the phrase “at any stage of the proceedings” would entitle the petitioner to file an application, even after the period of limitation of three years and in support of such a submission, the learned counsel would rely upon the decisions of this Court reported in 2013 7 MLJ 328 ( S.Manoharan vs. Karunamurthy ) and CDJ 2009 MHC 5288 ( K.Sunthanthiram vs. V.Murugesan ).

4. The said submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents by submitting that the application seeking for amendment filed after the period of limitation has expired, cannot be entertained. He would also submit that the respondents have questioned the limitation in their written statement as well as the counter filed in the application seeking for amendment and even assuming that the application for amendment is permissible, without reference to the law of limitation, after the suit is barred by limitation, then the application cannot be entertained.

5. In the decisions relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner, the proposition which came to be laid down was that, the cause of action for claiming the alternative relief for refund of the sale advance amount would arise, only when the main relief of specific performance is rejected and if an application for amendment is made within three years from the date of rejection of such a plea for specific performance, the same would be maintainable.

6. It is also the view of this Court that the limitation for seeking for amendment of the alternative relief would commence, only when the main relief of specific performance is rejected. The phrase “at any stage of the proceedings” has been contemplated under S.22 of the Specific Relief Act for this purpose only.

7. The relevant portions of the decisions of this Court is extracted hereunder:

(a) (2013) 7 MLJ 328 in the case of S.Manoharan vs. Karunamurthy

10. Upon considering these pleadings as well as the evidence let in by both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would show that the question of limitation was not raised as an issue and the Court below has also not given any specific finding as to whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation or not. The finding of the trial court would only show that it had dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff did not take any steps within the time prescribed in the suit agreement. Not taking any steps within the time stipulated in the suit agreement is one thing and not filing the suit within the period of limitation is another thing. Thus, it is crystal clear that the question of limitation was not raised by the defendant in the written statement and not an issue framed by the trial Court while deciding the lis between the parties. When that being the position, let us consider as to whether the plaintiff, after filing the appeal before the appellate court, is entitled to file the amendment petition after a period of nearly five years from the date of dismissal of the suit and filing of the appeal to include the alternative relief of refunding the advanc