Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) This is a revision against the order of the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur allowing amendment in the plaint. The plaintiff sought a decree for sale of the mortgaged property. By amendment, the plaintiff sought to add the relief for a simple money decree. Objections were filed by the defendants-applicants that the plea was barred by limitation. The amendment was allowed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.4.2001.
(2.) I have heard Shri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists-applicants. His contention is that the relief for a simple money decree is barred by time in view of Articles 19 and 21 of the Limitation Act, which provide for a three-year limitation for filing the suit. Reliance is placed by Shri Tandon upon following three decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) Virendra Kumar Goel v. Kusum Bhuwania (Smt), 1997(11) SCC 457. (ii) Munni Lal v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (1996) 1 SCC 90. (iii) K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. and another v. Alliance Ministries and others, 1995(3) RRR 425 (SC) : 1995 Supp (3) SCC 17.
(3.) In Virendra Kumar Goel (supra) amendment of the plaint in a suit for declaration and injunction to seek the relief for specific performance was refused on the ground that the suit for specific performance had already become barred by limitation. The Apex Court observed that although the plaintiff had made reference to the agreement and requested for execution of the sale deed but there was nothing in the plaint to show that the respondent was seeking specific performance of contract. It is to be noted that the Apex Court did not agree with the view of the High Court that the plaintiff- respondent had made out a case for specific performance and nothing new had been sought for by way of amendment.;