Melmo Agencies vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

G.C. Garg, J.—This order will dispose of C.R. Nos. 2080 and, 2081 of 1993. These revisions are directed against the orders of Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad dated 29.3.1993, whereby applications moved by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were dismissed.

Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief and permanent injunction. The basic prayer in the suit was to recover compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest from the date of filing the suit till realisation on the ground that the defendant, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Faridabad wrongly rejected the claim of the plaintiff under the Insurance Policy. The suit was filed in June, 1987 and the application seeking amendment of the plaint was moved in the year 1993. By way of amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff wanted to convert the suit into a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- and was ready to pay the ad valorem court fee on this amount. This application was opposed by the defendant by filing a reply. The trial Court on a consideration of the matter rejected the application by observing that there was no explanation for not moving such application for six long years and the application has been moved only at a stage when the suit is ripened for arguments. The trial Court as already noticed above, dismissed the applications. Hence these revisions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the application only on the ground of delay and keeping in view the fact that the claim for money would be barred by time. In fact this is not so. In case the application is allowed, it will relate back to the date of filing the suit and question of limitation would not arise.

Learned counsel in support of his claim has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kehar Singh v. Balraj Singh and Anr. (1991)99 PLR 616, Learned counsel also placed reliance in the case of Mukand Lal and Anr. v. Khusal Singh and Ors. (1998-2)119 PLR 171.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that these revisions have no merit.

The decision in Mukand Lal''s case (supra) has no application to the facts of these cases. It is correct that amendment when allowed will relate back to the date of the suit, but in this case, suit for recovery of money cannot be filed after the period of limitation. Cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 7.5.1987, when the claim petition was rejected and he was informed in that behalf. A suit to challenge this order and for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- cannot be filed after a lapse of six years, being barred by time. Where right has accrued to the defendant by lapse of time, it cannot be taken away by granting amendment of the plaint. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order of the trial Court where-by suit seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.

Since proceedings were stayed, parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 2.11.1998 for further proceedings in accordance with law.