(1) The respondent - plaintiff was born on 10th may, 1944. She attained majority on 10th may, 1962, and after about two years she instituted the present suit, out of which this revision arises, on 1st april, 1964 for recovery of possession and mesne profits for three years prior to the suit. After the defence was set forth and issues framed, plaintiff led evidence. At that stage, an application was filed on 31st march, 1966 under order 6, rule 17, civil procedure code, to amend the plaint by adding a claim for mesne profits for nine years from 1952 to 1961, thus in all claiming 12 years' mesne profits instead of three years. That petition was resisted by the defendants mainly on the ground that the claim for this is time barred and there are no circumstances which should permit the plaintiff to get over the bar of limitation by such amendment. The lower court allowed the petition to amend the plaint. It is that order that is now questioned in this revision petition.
(2) Now it is true that order 6, rule 17, civil procedure code, is wide enough to permit all such amendments although the claim of the plaintiff is time barred. But this is not a rule. It is an exception. Normally, the defendant should not be deprived of his valuable right which has accrued to him on the basis of limitation. There are no circumstances in this case which would justify such a deprivation of the right of the defendant. No reason is shown as to why in spite of the plaintiff attaining majority two years prior to the suit, she did not claim 12 years' mesne profits and why she waited for nearly two years after the suit was filed and her evidence was almost completed. In the absence of any explanation, which satisfies the court, the lower court was not justified in granting such permission depriving totally the defendants of a very valuable plea of limitation.
(3) Reliance was placed by mr. I. Balaiah, the learned counsel for the respondent, on a. K. Gupta and sons v. Damodar valley corporation, 1967 1 scj 223 : 1966 1 scr 796 : air 1967 sc 96. That case, however, can be distinguished easily on the facts. What had happened in that case was that a suit under section 42 of the specific relief act was instituted with the avowed object of getting an authoritative interpretation of some clause in the agreement. When the witness was confronted in the appellate court that such a suit would not lie, he sought amendment of the plaint to recover the amount to which he was entitled in view of the interpretation of that clause. In those circumstances the amendment was allowed.
(4) In this case, the plaintiff was well aware that she was entitled to claim mesne profits for all the twelve years as the cause of action regarding the mesne profits had arisen, during her minority and that she was instituting the suit within three years after she attained the majority. In spite of that, she did not claim 12 years' mesne profits but claimed only three years' mesne profits. She kept quiet for another two years although the suit was resisted by the defendants. It is an additional plaint, which is admittedly time barred. There are no pleadings in regard to nine years, and it cannot be doubted that the defendants might have certain factual defence in regard to those nine years. I am therefore satisfied that the lower court was not justified, in the circumstances mentioned above, to allow the amendment of a claim, which is patently time barred, particularly when no satisfactory reasons were shown.
(5) I would therefore allow this civil revision petition, set aside the order permitting the amendment, and dismiss the petition filed by the plainiff on 31st march, 1966, for that purpose. In the circumstances of the case, however, i leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed, order set aside.