Full Text
Date of Decision: 1st August, 2014.
REVIEW PETITION No.330/2014 in FAO(OS) 178/2014
SMT SUMITRA PARASHAR & ANR..... Appellants/Review applicants
Through: Mr. Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi with Ms. Pooja Yadav and Mr. Shubham Jain, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta with Mr. Jatin Kumar, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Review Petition No.330/2014 & CM.No.11533/2014(Stay)
JUDGMENT
1. Review is sought of our judgment dated 2nd July, 2014 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the amendment of the plaint in the suit filed by the respondents against the appellants. Though we have in the judgment, of which review is sought, dealt with the aspect of the additional relief claimed by way of amendment, at least at this stage incapable of being said to be barred by time but the counsel for the appellants / review applicants has again argued on the said aspect. We have also heard the counsel for the respondents. 2014:DHC:3626-DB Review Petition 330/2014 & CM No.11533/2014
2. The counsel for the appellants / review applicants appears to be under the impression that our observations in the judgment, of which review is sought, on the aspect of limitation are final but which in our opinion is not the correct position in law. A bare perusal of our order would show that what we have observed therein on the aspect of limitation was “at least as of today” and which could not and does not bar the appellants from, in the written statement to the amended plaint, setting up the plea of limitation.
3. We reiterate that additional relief claimed by way of amendment could not at the stage of amendment be said to be barred by time.
4. The review petition is thoroughly misconceived and is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 01, 2014 M