Amendment cannot be allowed where it would amount to altering the nature of the suit

In the matter of Eknath Nivrutti Hegadkar vs. Aagatrao Dyanu Ghodake in Writ Petition no. 7436 of 2017 decided on 01.06.2021 decided by the Bombay High Court.

Facts:
The original plaintiff/ Respondent instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property in the year 2008. In the year, 2016, the original plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to add the relief of declaration of title in the name of original plaintiff as the owner of the suit property. The trial court allowed the said application.
The petitioner/original defendant impugned the order of the trial court allowing the amendment application on the ground the amendment was barred by limitation and that the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit.
On the other hand, the original plaintiffs defended the decision of the trial court contending that the amendment was at a stage when trial had not commenced hence, the Court had the option to take a liberal view of allowing the amendment. It was also contended that the aggrieved party can seek framing of additional issue of limitation. It was further submitted that the allowing of the amendment relates back to the date of institution of the suit i.e. 2008.

Held:
The Bombay High Court observed that it was an admitted position that the original defendants had challenged the title of the original plaintiffs by filing his written statement on 07.08.2008, therefore, the cause of action for seeking declaratory relief of title to the suit property arose on 07.08.2008. The proposed amendment was being sought after more than 8 years from the date of denial of the title. Under the provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in such a case, the maximum period of limitation allowed is 3 years and thus, the action on the part of the original plaintiffs was clearly barred by the law of limitation.
The Court further held that in the present case, the amendment was not necessary for determination of the real controversy. The amendment to seek declaratory relief of title could not have been allowed and granted in view of the aforesaid provisions because the original suit was a suit simpliciter seeking injunction. This relief of seeking declaratory title alters the nature of the original suit for injunction.
Hence the impugned order allowing the amendment application filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) was set aside.