claim of the plaintiffs for recovery of the amount is barred by limitation and therefore, could not be allowed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on three judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. in the case of Pankaja & another versus Yellappa (D) by Lrs & others, 2004(3) RCR (Civil); South Konkan Distilleries & another versus Prabhakar Gananan Naik & others, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 513 and Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu versus Sita Ram Saraugi and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 679. According to ratio of these judgments, ordinarily amendment of plaint for time barred claim should not be allowed by the Court, but nevertheless court has discretion in the matter and the amendment cannot be refused when the question of limitation being mixed question of law and facts is debatable one. It was also contended that amendment application was moved after commencement of trial and therefore, could not have been allowed. Reliance for this proposition has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Khushi Ram versus Murli Manohar Thatheran Panchayati Mandir and Dharamsala Society, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 967. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited judgment of this Court in the case of Prithi Pal Singh and another versus Amrik Singh and another, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) regarding scope of amendment of pleadings.
