M. L. JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dated 15th February, 1978.
(2.) THE respondent plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on the averment that the petitioner-defendant had agreed to sell his house for Rs. 32,000/. THE plaintiff alleged that the defendant got in all an amount of Rs. 11,400/ -. THE defendant had also permitted the plaintiff to raise further constructions upon the land and also to bear the expenses of litigation in which some part of the property was involved. THE plaintiff averred that upon new constructions, repairs, and litigation he had to spend a sum of Rs. 50,701/92 p. In this manner the defendant was liable to pay Rs. 62,101/-in case the decree of specific performance was not granted. THE plaintiff, however, failed to add an alternative relief in respect of recovery of the aforesaid amount. THE suit was filed some time in 1971 and an amendment application was made under order 6 rule 17, C. PC. on 16th August, 1977, for amendment of the plaint so as to include the alternative relief for recovery of the aforesaid amount. THE learned Additional District Judge by his impugned judgment allowed the application upon payment of costs of Rs. 100/. It is urged now that the order of the learned Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction because the claim of the aforesaid amount by the time of the amendment application had become barred by time. Moreover, it was inconsistent with the specific condition in the agreement that all the expenditure upon construction, repairs and litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no error of jurisdiction nor any illegality or irregularity in the exercise thereof, committed by the learned lower court. The law in this respect as stated in L. J. Leach & Co. Ltd. vs. Messrs Jardine Skinner & Co. (l) is that : "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. " It is, therefore, incorrect to urge that in no circumstances a claim can be added which has become barred by limitation on the date of application for amendment. Limitation is only a factor in considering whether particular amendment should be allowed or not. Moreover, the case is specifically covered by the new provision enacted in section 21 (5) and 23 (2) provisos of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides that an amendment to pray for compensation and any relief other than possession can be allowed at any stage of the suit. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, calls for no interference and this revision petition is dismissed summarily. .;