Holding

An amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed when the claim is already barred by limitation, and the lower courts were correct in rejecting the amendment.

Summary

In a suit for dissolution of a partnership, the defendants filed a written statement on 17 June 1987 with a counter‑claim of Rs.52 lakhs. Thirteen and a half years later, in 2000, they sought to amend the written statement and increase the claim to Rs.8.53 crore, alleging daily losses of Rs.20,000 since the original filing. The plaintiffs opposed, contending that the amendment was barred by limitation. Both the trial court and the High Court rejected the amendment, holding the claim already time‑barred. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether an amendment could be permitted when the claim was already barred by the Limitation Act, considering CPC Order 6 Rule 17 and relevant precedents. The Court affirmed that the amendment could not be allowed as the claim was barred at the date of the amendment application, and the lower courts had correctly exercised their discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the effect of the limitation period on a request to amend a written statement and counter‑claim under CPC Order 6 Rule 17?
Can an amendment be permitted when the amended claim would be barred by limitation at the time of filing the amendment?

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 6 Rule 17

Subjects

amendment of pleadingslimitationCivil Procedure Codecounter claimpartnership dissolutiondelayjudicial discretion

Judgment

, ( ~
[2008) 13 S.C.R. 295

SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES & ANR. A
V.
PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5567 of 2008)

SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Or. 6, r. 17 -Amendment of written statement and counter
claim - Sought for after 13 years of its filing - HELD: Claim c
being barred by limitation, trial court and High Court were jus-
tified in rejecting the prayer for amendment - Limitation.
In a suit for dissolution of partnership, the defendants
filed a written statement on 17 .6.1987 and set up a counter
". D
claim of Rs.52 lakhs. After 13 years of filing of the written
statement, the defendants filed an application in the year
2000 for amendment of the written statement and the
counter claim seeking enhanced amount of Rs.8,53,50,000/
- alleging that they were suffering loss of Rs.20,000/- per
day from the date of filing of the written statement. The E
plaintiffs resisted the application on the ground of limita-
tion. The trial court as also the High Court declined the
amendment.
,"(
In the instant appeal filed by the defendants, the F
question for consideration before the Court was as to
whether an amendment of the written statement and the
counter claim could be allowed, which was filed after thir-
teen and a half years of filing of the written statement and
the counter claim, if the claim was already barred by the G
law of limitation.
~ Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The courts generally, as a rule, decline to
-. 295 H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
-\:; ~

A allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim
would be barred by limitation on the date of filing of the
application. But, that would be a factor to be taken into
account in the exercise of the discretion as to whether
the amendment should be ordered, and does not affect
I'
8 the power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the
interest of justice. [para 1O] [302-C]
Vishwambhar & Ors. vs. Laxminarayan (Dead) through
Lrs. & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 163; Vineet Kumar vs. Mangat Sain
Wadhera AIR 1985 SC 817; L.J.Leach & Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
c Mis. Jardine Skinner & Co. AIR 1957 SC 357; and TN. Alloy
Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs. TN. Electricity Board and Ors. (2004) 3
SCC 392; Ragu Thi/ak O.John vs. S. Rayappan & Ors. 2001
(2) sec 472 - referred to.
1.2 In the instant case, the date on which the appli-
D
cation for amendment of the written statement and the
counter claim was filed, the claim was already barred by
limitation. If a fresh suit was filed on the amended claim,
there cannot be any dispute that the same could also be
barred by the law of limitation. Delay and latches on the
E part of the appellants to apply for amendment of the writ-
ten statement and the counter claim would be the relevant
factor for rejecting the application for amendment of the
pleadings. There has been thirteen and a half years delay
in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings.
F Further more, in the application for amendment, the ap-
pellants had not given any explanation whatsoever for
such delay. Therefore, the two courts below acted within
their jurisdiction and were perfectly justified in rejecting
the prayer for amendment of the written statement and
G the counter claim. [para 16 and 19] (305 8-C 307 D-F]

Vineet Kumar vs. Mangat Sain Wadhera 1984 (3) SCC
352 - relied on.
Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi vs. Prabhakar Mohan/al Ka/war .
•
H 1990 (1) sec 166 - distinguished.
SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES & ANR. v. 297
PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK & ORS.

1.3 The courts below rightly held that there was no A
dispute on the·question of limitation. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the point of limitation was an arguable one
and the same should be decided by raising an issue at
the time of disposal of the suit. [para 15] [305-A]
A. K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation B
AIR 1967 SC 96 - distinguished.
2. From a reading of the original written statement, it
is evident that the appellants limited their counter claim
to Rs. 52 lakhs only towards damages and made con- c
scious choice to compute the sum only upto a particular
period and not beyond that. In the original written state-
ment and the counter claim, there is no averment regard-
ing the continuous nature of losses on daily basis which
has been claimed after thirteen and a half years of filing
0
the written statement. Therefore, it is clear that by way of
an amendment, the appellants are now completely mak-
ing out a new case by alleging that they were incurring
damages on continuous basis, which is contrary to the
pleadings made in the written statement and the counter
claim. Even assuming that certain losses were being E
caused but such losses were within the knowledge of the
appellants all along even at the time of filing of the origi-
nal written statement i.e. since 1987. [para 12-14] [303 G,H]
Pankaja and Anr. Vs. Yellappa [Dead] By LRs and Ors. F
(2004) 6 sec 415 - held not applicable.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1957 SC 357 referred to para 8
(2004) 3 sec 392 referred to para 8 G
2001 (2) sec 472 referred to para 10
(2001) 6 sec 163 referred to para 10
AIR 1985 SC 817 referred to para 10
(2004) 6 sec 415 held not applicable para 15 H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
'I: '

A AIR 1967 SC 96 distinguished Para 16
1984 (3) sec 352 relied on para 16
1990 (1) sec 166 distinguished para 18

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5567
B of 2008.
From the Judgment dated 20.10.2006 of the High Court
of Bombay at Goa in W.P. No. 463/2003

Bhaskar P. Gupta, Siddharth Bhatnagar, T. Mahipal,
C Pawan Kr. Bansal and Shailender for the Appellants.

Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh D-eora; J. Thakkar and
Harshvardhan Jha (for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co.) for the Respon-
dents.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave .granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 20 1h of October, 2006 passed by the High Court of
E Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition NoA63 of 2003 whereby the
High Court had affirmed the order of the trial court dated 5 1h of
February, 2001 by which the trial court had rejected the appli-
cation for amendment of written statement and the counter claim
of the defendants/appellants.

F 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are stated
in a nutshell:-
Prabhakar Gajanan Naik has filed a suit for dissolution of
partnership firm wherein the appellant No.1, being defendant
No.1 in the suit, was the partnership firm and the appellant No.2,
G who is defendant No. 4, was a partner of the said firm. In the
said suit for dissolution of partnership, the appellants by their
written statement disputed the existence of such partnership
and had taken a plea that by way of a family arrangement, the
defendants/appellants were allowed to carry on the business of
H setting up South Konkan Distilleries. In their written statement,
( .. SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES & ANR. v. 299
PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]

the appellants also claimed that in view of various letters ad- A
dressed to various Banks,the said distillery could not be com-
menced as scheduled in May, 1986 and as a result thereof, the
appellants suffered heavy loss. Accordingly, in the written state-
ment, a counter claim of Rs.52 lakhs was made against the
.,(
original plaintiff/respondent. The said written statement was, B
however, filed on 17th of June, 1987. The counter claim of the
appellants was based on a notice of the learned counsel dated
23rd of October, 1986. In 2000, i.e., after thirteen and a half years,
the appellants filed an application for amendment of the written
statement and the counter claim seeking enhanced amount. In c
the application for amendment, the appellants had alleged that
as they were suffering loss of Rs. 20,000/- per day from the
month of June, 1987, when the original written statement was
filed, the counter claim was made only upto to the date of filing
of the written statement and by seeking an amendment of the
'I D
same, they were only claiming a sum of,Rs.20,000/- per day
from June, 1986 till November, 2000 which would be less than
Rs.25 lakhs. This application for amendment of the written state-
ment and the counter claim, filed by the appellants, was op-
posed by the original plaintiff/respondent on the ground that the
prayer for amendment of the written statement and the counter E
claim was clearly barred by the law of limitation. The trial court
'· by its order dated 5th of February, 2001 came to the conclusion
that as the cause of action arose in 1986, the prayer for amend-
ment of the written statement and the counter claim for enhanced
--"(
damages, as noted herein earlier, was clearly ex facie barred F
by the law of limitation. Accordingly, the trial court rejected the
application for amendment of the written statement and the
·counter claim filed by the appellants and aggrieved by the afore-
said order of rejection, a writ petition being W.P.No.463/2003
was filed at the instance of the appellants which was also re- G
jected by the impugned order of the learned Judge of the High
'.- Court against which a special leave petition was filed and on
grant of leave, the same was heard in presence of the learned
counsel for the parties.
H
300 SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R
. ~

A 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
examined the application for amendment of the written state-
ment, the counter claim and also the original written statement
including the plaint filed by the respondents in the present suit.
At this stage, we may record that this Court while issuing notice
B on 12.2.2007 passed the following order:
..
"Issue notice limited to the question as to whether the
amendment could have been allowed with some
modification so as to grant relief to the petitioner only to
the extent of amount not barred by limitation as on the
c date of the application."
5. The learned counsel for the parties appearing before
us, however, submitted that in the fittest of things, this appeal
may be decided whether the amendment of the written state-
D ment and the counter claim would at all be ailowed as the law of
t'
limitation would stand in the way. Such being the stand taken by
the learned counsel for the parties, we had taken up the ques-
tion at issue raised before us. The question is whether an
amendment of the written statement and the counter claim could
be allowed, which was filed after thirteen and a half years of
E
filing of the written statement and the counter claim, if the claim
was already barred by the law of limitation.

6. As noted herein earlier, the High Court as well as the
trial Court rejected the application for amendment of the written
F statement and the counter claim on the ground that as the cause
of action had arisen in 1986, the claim of the appellants sought
to be amended by filing the application for amendment of the
written statement and the counter claim was clearly ex-facie
barred by the law of limitation.
G 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of amendment and the length of time
after which the prayer for amendment was made by the appel- ...
!ants in the written statement and the counter claim, we are of
the view that the High Court as well as the trial court had exer-
H cised their jurisdiction in a proper manner in rejecting the appli-
SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES & ANR. v. 301
( . PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]

cation for amendment of the written statement and the counter A
claim.
8. Before we deal with the orders of the courts below, as
to wh.ether the application for amendment of the written state-
ment and the counter claim was rightly rejected or not, let us
f consider the laws on the question of allowing or rejecting a prayer B
for amendment of the pleadings when the plea of limitation was
taken by one of the parties in the suit. It is well settled that the
court must be extremely liberal in' granting the prayer for amend-
ment, if the court is of the view that if such amendment is not
allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall c
suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is also equally well settled
that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is
barred because of limitation, amendment should not be allowed.
It is always open to the court to allow an amendment if it is of the
view that allowing of an amendment shall really sub-serve the D
....
ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation. In L.J.Leach
& Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Jardine Skinner & Co. [AIR 1957
SC 357], this Court at paragraph 16 of the said decision ob-
served as follows :-
"It is no doubt true that courts would, as a rule, decline to E
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 interest ofjustice."
F

9. Again in T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity
Board and Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 392 this Court observed as fol-
lows:
G
"The law as regards permitting amendment to the plaint,
,.
is well settled in L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd.. v. Jardine Skinner
).-
and Co., it was held that the Court 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 H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A application. But this 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.

It is not disputed that the appellate court has a
B coextensive power to the trial court. We find that the ~

discretion exercised by the High Court in rejecting the
plaint was in conformity with law. "
10. From the above, therefore, one of the cardinal prin-
c ciples of law allowing or rejecting an application for amend-
ment of the pleading is that the courts generally, as a rule, de-
cline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim
would be barred by limitation on the date of filing of the applica-
tion. But that would be a factor to be taken into account in the
exercise of the discretion as to whether the amendment should
D
be ordered, and does not affect the power of the Court to order \.-
it, if that is required in the interest of justice. In Ragu Thi!ak
O.John vs. S. Rayappan & Ors. [2001 (2) SCC 472], this Court
also observed that where the amendment was barred by time
or not, was a disputed question of fact and, therefore, that prayer
c- for amendment could not be rejected and in that circumstances
the issue of limitation can be made an issue in the suit itself. In
a decision in Vishwambhar & Ors. vs. Laxminarayan (Dead)
through Lrs. &Anr [(2001) 6 SCC 163], this Court held that the
amendment though properly made cannot relate back to the
F date of filing of the suit, but to the date of filing of the applica- ~

tion. Again in Vineet Kumar vs. Mangat Sain Wadhera [AIR
1985 SC 817] this Court held that if a prayer for amendment
merely adds to facts already on record, the amendment would
be allowed even after statutory period of limitation.
G
11. Keeping the principles laid down by various decisions
of this Court, as noted herein earlier, we now proceed to take
up t11e facts leading to the refusal of the prayer for amendment -.(

by the courts below.

H 12. A plain reading of the original written statement would
SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES & ANR v. 303
,,,# PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J)

show that the case pleaded by the appellants in their written A
statement was to the effect that the appellant No. 2 had under-
taken an expansion project, which, due to certain alleged acts
of the answering respondents, ran into delays, however, at the
time of filing of the written statement, the expansion project was
in full swing and the appellants were making continuous invest- 8
ments and that, there was no interference by the respondents. It
would also be clear from the written statement that the appel-
. !ants had invested Rs. 20 lakhs in the project when the alleged
acts of omission and commission were undertaken by the re-
spondents and in. fact, p_aragraph 26 of the same gives an im- c
pression that the said project was under completion and that
the appellants, till then, had invested Rs. 40-45 lakhs. It was for
the aforesaid reasons, that the appellants claimed damages
for a sum of Rs. 52 lakhs by way of a counter claim and made a
conscious decision not to claim for any damages arising in the
D
future. It was, therefore, stated in the written statement that the
~
.
expansion was in progress and the appellants . had claimed dam-
ages only for the alleged delay, which was allegedly pleaded.
From a reading of paragraph 55 of the original written state-
ment, it is also evident that the appellants have limited their
counter claim to Rs. 52 lakhs only towards damages and made E
conscious choice to compute the sum only upto a particular/
period and not beyond that. It is only after thirteen and a half
years of filing the original written statement and the counter cl9im,
for which no explanation was given in the application for amend-
~ ment of the written statement and the counter claim, the appel- F
!ants have now by way of an amendment of the written state-
ment antl the counter claim, sought to increase the amount of
damages from Rs.52 lakhs, as originally claimed, to Rs.
8,53,50,000/- by claiming damages allegedly incurred for the
subsequent period from the year 1986. G
13. Therefore, it is clear from the above that by way of an
amendment, the appellants are now completely making out a
new case by alleging that the appellants were incurring dam-
ages on continuous basis, which is contrary to the ~leadings
H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 s c =<

A made in the written statement and the counter claim which has
already been stated hereinabove.
14. An argument was advanced at the instance of the
learned counsel for the appellants that by way of an amend-
ment. the appellants only sought to introduce certain subsequent
8 events after filing of the original written statement This submis-
sion of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be sup-
ported. The issue of alleged damages cannot be said to be a
subsequent event as the appellants are now trying to plead. l
Even assuming for the sake of arguments that certain losses
C were being caused but such losses were within the knowledge.
of the appellants all along even at the time of filing of the origi-
nal written statement i.e. since 1987. in any case, in the original
written statement and the counter claim, there is no averment
regarding the continuous nature of losses on daily basis which
D has been claimed after thirteen and a half years of filing the
written statement, when in the original written statement, the ap-
pellants consciously claimed damages only till a particular pe-
-
riod.
15. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the ap-
E pellants that since it is well settled that the Court should be ex-
tremely liberal in granting amendment, provided the same was
within the period of limitation or there would be an arguable
issue with regard to the point of limitation, the courts below ought
to have allowed the amendment of the written statement and
F the counter claim and thereby raised an issue on the question
whether the amended claim of the appellants was barred by
the law of limitation. In support of this submission, reliance was
placed in the case of Pankaja and Anr. Vs. Ye/fappa [Dead]
By LRs and Ors. [ (2004) 6 SCC 415). There is no quarrel about
G the proposition of law that was submitted by the learned coun-
sel for the appellants. In any view of the matter in that decision,
namely, Pankaja and Anr., the question of limitation was found
to be arguable issue and on that ground this Court allcwed the
amendment and the trial court was directed to frame neces-
H sary issue on the question of limitation and decide the sar'le
SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES & ANR. v. 305
PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J]

keeping in view the law laid down in L.J. Leach's case [supra]. A
But in the present case, we are in full agreement with the courts
below that there was no dispute on the question of limitation.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the point of limitation was an
arguable one and the same should be decided by raising an
issue at the time of disposal of the suit. B
16. In view of our discussions made hereinabove that there
was no dispute on the question of limitation, it would not be fit
and proper to hold that the Courts below had acted illegally and
with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in
rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement C
and the counter claim. The learned counsel for the appellants,
however, relied on a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1967
SC 96 [AK.Gupta & Sons Ltd. vs. Damodar Valley Corpora-
tion] in order to satisfy us that the prayer for amendment for a
sum already specified in the plaint or such other amount as was D
to be determined after accounts, ought to be allowed though
the suit for recovery of money was barred when the amend-
ment was sought. In our view, that decision of this Court stands
on a different footing altogether and will not be of any help to the
appellants. In that decision, it was made clear that the amend- E
ment of pleadings introducing new case cannot be allowed; if
suit on such case is barred. In that decision also, it was made
clear that in the matter of allowing amendment of pleadings, the
general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set
up a new case or a new cause of action, particularly when a suit F
on the new cause of action is barred. However, an exception
was given in that decision saying where the amendment does
not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a
different case, but amounts merely to a different or additional
approach to the same facts, the amendment is to be allowed G
even after expiry of the statutory period of limitation. We have
already observed that there is no quarrel on the proposition
enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid decision. As held here-
inabove, the date on which the application for amendment of
the written statement and the counter claim was filed, the claim
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A was already barred by limitation. Therefore, if a fresh suit was
filed on the amended claim, there cannot be any dispute that the
same could also be barred by the law of limitation. Under these
circumstances and applying also the principles laid down in the
aforesaid decision in the case of AK.Gupta (supra), in the facts
B of this case, we are of the view that since even on the date of
filing of the application for amendment of the written statement
and the counter claim, the claim was barred and no fresh suit
could be filed on such amended claim and, therefore, the two
courts below had acted within their jurisdiction in rejecting the
c prayer for amendment of the written statement and the counter
claim. It may not be out of place to mention that following the
principle laid down in A.K. Gupta's case (supra), this Court again
in Vineet Kumar vs. Mangal Sain Wadhera [1984 (3) SCC 352]
expressed the same view to which we have already adhered to.
D 17. Considering the facts of the case and the nature of
amendment claimed and the principles laid down by this Court
in L.J.Leach's case (supra) and other decisions of this Court,
as referred to herein earlier, we are of the view that if a suit was
filed on the amended claim, it was an admitted position that the
E said claim was barred by limitation, the question of allowing the
amendment of the written statement and the counter claim, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, could not arise at all.
Accordingly, the courts below were fully justified in rejecting the
application for amendment of the written statement and the
F counter claim.
18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ap-
pellants again relied on a decision of this Court in Gajanan
Jaikishan Joshi vs. Prabhakar Mohan/al Ka/war [1990 (1) SCC
166] and sought to argue that the courts below were in error in
G rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement
L
and the counter claim. In our view, that decision of this Court is ·
distinguishable on facts. In that decision, no fresh cause of ac-
tion was sought to be introduced by the amendment applied
for. All that the appellant sought to do in that case was to com-
H piete the cause of action for specific performance for which re-
SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES & ANR. v. 307
~· -~ ~
PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J]

lief he had already prayed for. It was only that one averment A
'
~ required in law to be made in a plaint in a suit for specific per-
: formance was not made in that case as the provisions of sub-
section (c) of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act was manda-
tory in nature, probably on account of some oversight or mis-
take of the lawyer who drafted the plaint and that error was B
~ ·1'
sought to be rectified by the amendment applied for. This is not
the position in the present case. Admittedly the claim of 1986
was sought to be made by way of the amendment of the written
statement and the counter claim in the year 2000, when that
claim had already become barred by the law of limitation. Such c
being the position and in view of the principle laid down, as
noted herein above, that if a suit was filed for the amended claim
which could have become barred by the law of limitation, the
application for amendment was rightly rejected.
19. Keeping the aforesaid findings made by us and also D
the findings arrived at by the courts below in the matter of exer-
--· cise of discretion to reject the application for amendment of the
written statement and the counter claim in mind, the delay and
latches on the part of the appellants to apply for amendment of
the written statement and the counter claim would be the rel- E
evant factor for rejecting the application for amendment of the
pleadings. As noted herein earlier, there has been thirteen and
a half years delay in filing the application for amendment of the
pleadings. Further more, in the application for amendment, the
appellants had not given any explanation whatsoever for such F
delay. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the orders of the courts below. In our view, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below were
perfectly justified in rejecting the prayer for amendment of the
written statement and the counter claim.
G

- .,.,
20. In view of our findings made hereinabove, that on the
date of filing of the amendment petition, the claim as made by
the appellants in their amendment petition was already barred,
no purpose would be achieved by allowing the amendment
which has already stood barred by the law of limitation. H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R

A 21. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the
courts below had exercised their discretion in a proper manner
in the matter of rejecting the amendment of the pleadings. We,
therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to dis-
B pose of the suit as early as possible preferably within a year
from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. There will be
no order as to costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.