Amendment permissible for time-barred claims against invalid prior award-based sales when necessary for effective relief post-impleadment.

ORDER

Before the trial Court, the plaintiff filed two applications, namely, I.A.

No. 2 of 2025 and I.A. No. 4 of 2025. In I.A. No. 2 of 2025, the plaintiff sought to implead defendants 5 to 13, who are the subsequent purchasers of the suit property. In I.A. No. 4 of 2025, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint. Upon consideration, the trial Court allowed I.A. No. 2 of 2025, thereby permitting impleadment of the said purchasers. However, I.A. No. 4 of 2025, which was filed for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the amendment application, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that, subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff came to know about a Lok Adalat award passed in O.S. No. 102 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tiruppur. Based on the said award, several sale transactions were effected in respect of the suit properties during the period from 2017 to 2023. It is further submitted that the alleged compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat on 26.04.2017 is illegal. In this regard, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 846 of

2022 in O.S. No. 102 of 2017 (wherein she was subsequently impleaded as the third defendant) seeking recall of the said Lok Adalat award. Upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recalled the Lok Adalat award and the decree passed therein.

3. Thereafter, in the present suit in O.S. No. 9 of 2018, the plaintiff filed the above applications seeking (i) impleadment of the subsequent purchasers, and (ii) amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for declaration declaring the sale deeds executed between 2017 and 2023 as null and void, as they were allegedly based on the said Lok Adalat award. While the trial Court allowed impleadment of the purchasers, it dismissed the amendment application on the ground that the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, once the trial Court permitted impleadment of the subsequent purchasers, it ought to have also allowed the amendment seeking declaratory relief against the sale deeds standing in the names of the newly impleaded parties. Without such a prayer, no effective decree can be passed against them. Hence, the rejection of the amendment application defeats the very purpose of impleadment.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents strongly opposed the revision, contending that the plaintiff was well aware of the sale deeds even at the time of filing the suit in the year 2018. Despite such knowledge, no relief of declaration was sought at that time. Some of the sale deeds date back to 2017 and, therefore, the present attempt to seek declaration after a lapse of about seven years is clearly barred by limitation. Since the plaintiff had knowledge of those documents, the trial Court has rightly held so and the same requires no interference.

6. In support of their contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 1 SCC 332 in L.C. Hanumanthappa (since dead) represented by his legal representatives vs. H.B. Shivakumar, wherein it was held that an amendment introducing a time-barred claim cannot be permitted and that the doctrine of relation back would not apply where such amendment takes away a vested right accrued to the other side. Reliance was also placed on (2024) 3 SCC 705 in Basavaraj vs. Indira and Others, wherein it was held that an amendment seeking to challenge a comprom