HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE appellant had filed the suit for partition and possession of 1/3rd share of the property left by one Mst. Rambhabai. No prayer for past mesne profits or future mesne profits was, however, made. In the relief clause a general relief was claimed, to the effect that any other relief or reliefs which the Court may hold the plaintiff to be entitled to be decreed. The plaintiff now desires to amend the relief clause to the following effect:
"that any such other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may hold the plaintiff to be entitled to be decreed to him including profits or mesne profits by directing an enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12 C. P. C. "
(2.) THIS application is opposed by the respondents on the ground that a large part of the future mesne profits has already been barred by limitation. The amendment should not, therefore, be allowed at this stage.
(3.) IN Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. AIR 1957 SC 357 their lordships held:
"it is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, If a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the interests of justice. " The same principle was reiterated by their Lordships in P. H. Patil v. K. S. Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363. It was, however, emphasised in that case that the amendment must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The amendment sought in this particular case is not necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy between the parties. It is for securing an additional relief, if the plaintiff succeeds in establishing the relief already prayed for.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.