In Brief
A sale agreement dated October 2010 between parties gave rise to a specific performance suit filed in 2014. When the respondent's written statement mentioned an alleged cancellation telegram from 2011, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to challenge the cancellation's legality. The trial court allowed the amendment with costs of Rs 500. The High Court set aside this order, reasoning that the plaintiff should have known of the cancellation earlier and that time-barred claims cannot be allowed via amendment. The Supreme Court held the trial court's order was not perverse and restored it, noting that knowledge of cancellation only emerged from the written statement and that time bar is one factor among many in considering amendments, especially where costs are imposed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.