1. This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 9th December, 1997, passed by the Principal District Munsif, Puttur, in IA No.1437 of 1997 arising out of OS No.159 of 1993, whereby and whereunder he dismissed an application filed by the petitioner herein for amendment of plaint.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the respondents. By reason of an application, he sought to amend the plaint by inserting paragraph 2-A therein, which reads thus:
'Plaintiff herein submits that suit land is the ancestral property of plaintiff. Plaintiff herein by long, open and exclusive possession prescribed title to the suit by adverse possession as well and as the defendants are denying the title of plaintiff he is obliged to file this suit for declaration of title also apart from permanent injunction.
Remove the letters '1,600-00' in para 6 of the plaint and insert '6,090-00' and remove 'Rs.148.50' and add '493-50 and remove '26(c)' and insert '24 (b)' in the same para.
In para 7 of the plaint after the market value column, insert the following words:
'Half of the Market value is Rs.6,090-00. Court fee paid for the relief of Injunction and declaration of title is Rs.493-50' and add the following words in para 8 of the plaint i.e., in prayer portion:
after 'a' and 'b' prayer, these words may be inserted-
'declaring the right, title, interest of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.'
3. The learned trial Judge while deciding the aforementioned application, considered the merit of the matter and, inter alia, had arrived at. a finding of fact that as the suit property is classified as 'kaluva poramboke' and belongs to the Government, the application for amendment should not be allowed. It was further held that for the purpose of obtaining the relief of declaration, the period of limitation is three years from the date of denial of title.
4. It is true that the application for amendment of plaint was filed at a belated stage but now, it is well settled principles of law that the applications for amendment of plaint are considered liberally having regard to the fact that thereby multifariousness of the proceedings would be avoided. The declaration of title sought for by the plaintiff, even according to the learned Court below, could be decided in the suit for permanent injunction also. In view of the aforementioned finding itself, the learned trial Judge ought not to have dismissed the application for amendment, inasmuch as thereby the defendants would not have been prejudiced.
5. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, suffice it to point out that even in a case where a claim, which has become barred by limitation, can be directed to be inserted. What is necessary is as to whether in the interests of justice, such an amendment is necessary. Reference in this connection is made to Leach and Company Limited v. M/s. Jardine Skinner and Company, : 1SCR438 .
6. As indicated hereinbefore, the petition of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint suffers from delay and laches. But, so far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, the defendants-respondents could have been compensated on monetory terms by awarding costs. Further more, before this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that no further evidence shall be adduced by the petitioner herein. No body appears to oppose this revision application.
7. For the reasons aforementioned, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the learned Court below is directed to allow the application for amendment of plaint filed by the petitioner herein, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the defendants. Such costs must be paid within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by the learned Court below.
8. The revision petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.