Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Defendants filed reply to the aforesaid application and denied the averments made in the application by inter alia contending that plaintiff had full knowledge of the house constructed by defendants No. 1 to 3 and therefore, since no challenge to the sale deed was made after its execution on 23/4/1988 for a considerable long period and amendment so sought are not bona fide and barred by limitation, therefore, such amendments cannot be allowed.

Trial Court by the impugned order has dismissed the application having found the same to be barred by time as according to trial Court the suit should have been filed within three years in terms of Article 59 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

Aforesaid amendments are in relation to the suit property already described in the plaint. Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that knowledge of those amendments were only after written statements were filed. There is nothing on record to suggest that plaintiff had knowledge of alleged will dated 23/12/1987 and sale deed dated 23/4/1988 except the assertions on the part of defendants that house so constructed is recorded in Municipal record and therefore, plaintiff had knowledge of the house being constructed by defendants as indicated in reply to application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Such assertion by itself cannot suggest that plaintiff had knowledge of these facts before the same were pleaded in the written statement. Considering the sequence of facts narrated by defendant in written statement, in the opinion of this Court amendments sought are bona fide and relevant for proper and effective adjudication of the case and does not change the nature of the suit. If the amendments are refused, it would lead to prejudice and may further lead to multiple of litigation.