Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) By invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present petition directs challenge against order dated 15.11.2016 whereby application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint by invoking Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') has been allowed.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the application seeking amendment of the plaint, there is not even a whisper much less an explanation as to why the facts sought to be added by way of amendment could not be pleaded in the original suit that was filed way-back in the year 2012, therefore, proposed amendment is hit by the proviso appended to Rule 17ORDER6 CPC. Another submission made by counsel is that as by way of the proposed amendment, the respondent/plaintiff has sought to challenge order dated 23.09.2008 passed by the Collector, Mohali and in case the proposed amendment is allowed, the same would relate back to the date of suit unless specifically ordered that it will not relate back to the date of plaint, it would affect the defence of limitation available to the petitioner/defendant. In support of his contentions, he has referred to judgments of different High Courts Kuldeep Saxena v. Additional District Judge, Room No.2, Lucknow & 4 others , 2016 (1) ARC 209 and Subhankar Sarangi and others v. Raghunath Tripathy and others , 2014 (40) RCR (Civil) 136. With regard to question of limitation, reference has been made to judgment of the Kerala High Court Subramanian v. Aboobacker Koya , 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 423 , judgment of this Court Raghvir Parshad etc. v. Chet Ram , 1971 Current Law Journal 612 , judgment of the Delhi High Court Vikram Singh Mehta v. M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited , 2001 (2) RCR (Civil) 434 and judgment of Rajasthan High Court The State of Rajasthan and others v. Rao Dhir Singh and others , 1972 AIR (Rajasthan) 241.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the paperbook various annexures particularly the order impugned.;