Smt Sumitra Parashar & Anr vs Smt Raj Rani & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 3478 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                              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.
                                       Versus

SMT RAJ RANI & ANR                                        ..... Respondents
                 Through:                     Mr. Lalit Gupta with Mr. Jatin
                                              Kumar, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

Review Petition No.330/2014 & CM.No.11533/2014(Stay)

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.
Review Petition 330/2014 & CM No.11533/2014                             Page 1 of 2
 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