Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Kiran Suri
For the Respondents: Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy

Key Points: - The judgment discusses amendment of pleadings despite delay and its alignment with justice and rights of opposing party (!) (!) . - It analyzes limitation issues under Entry 58, 64, and 65 of the Limitation Act and whether a declaration of title is barred by time (!) (!) . - It holds that the court may allow amendments even if barred by limitation if it serves justice and does not prejudice the other party, and directs trial on the issue of limitation under the amendment (!) (!) . - It states that the dominant purpose of allowing amendments is to minimize litigation and that there is no absolute rule against amendments due to limitation (!) (!) . - It references prior rulings (e.g., Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan; L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd.; T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd v. T.N. Electricity Board) to support discretionary power to allow amendments in the interest of justice (!) (!) (!) . - The Court ultimately allows the amendment and directs framing of issues and decision according to law, considering the arguable questions on limitation (!) .

How to determine whether an amendment of pleadings should be allowed despite delay in the context of a suit for declaration of title and possession?

What is the proper consideration of limitation/Entry 58, 64, or 65 of the Limitation Act in deciding whether to grant an amendment seeking a declaration of title?

What factors justify exercising discretionary power to allow amendments in the interest of justice when the amendment seeks to add a declaration of title and potential possession?