Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Chamber Summons taken out by defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 in Suit No. 2256 of 1998 pending before the Bombay High Court. The defendants sought amendment of their written statement, which was filed on 20 November 2006. The plaintiffs opposed the amendment on grounds of limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and alleged that the application was not bona fide and intended only to delay the trial. The plaintiffs also argued that the amendment was not necessary for deciding the real issues in controversy. The defendants contended that courts adopt a liberal approach for allowing amendments, that the amendment only elaborated on facts already pleaded, and that Article 137 does not apply to amendment applications. The court framed the issue of whether Article 137 applies to an application for amendment of pleadings. After hearing both sides, the court held that Article 137 does not apply to such applications, as no period of limitation is prescribed for amendment of pleadings. The court allowed the Chamber Summons, permitting the defendants to amend their written statement.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Article 137 - Applicability to Amendment Applications - Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to an application for amendment of pleadings - The court held that no period of limitation has been prescribed for making an application for amendment of a pleading, and such application can be made at any time (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to an application for amendment of pleadings?
Final Decision
The court allowed the Chamber Summons, permitting the defendants to amend their written statement.
Law Points
- Article 137 of Limitation Act does not apply to applications for amendment of pleadings
- Courts adopt liberal approach for amendment of pleadings
- Amendment sought only for elaborating existing facts is permissible
