Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner as well as the learned counsel for defendants-opposite parties 2nd set. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 8.6.2001 by which the learned Munsif, Sadar Purnea has rejected his petition for amendment of his plaint in Title Suit No. 763 of 1992. 3. The said suit was filed by the petitioner and opposite party 1st set for declaration that they were the occupancy raiyat of the suit land and for declaration of their title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to the suit lands of R.S. Plots no. 347, 447, 448 and 454 of R.S. Khata no. 116 measuring 5 Acres situated in village Chikni under Dhamdaha police station in the district of Purnea. Thereafter, defendant no. 1-opposite party no. 5 filed his written statement on 10.10.1996 contesting the claim of the plaintiff. 4. However, much later on 27.11.2000 the plaintiffs filed a petition (Annexure-1) for amendment of their plaint by way of adding a new paragraph 9-A and a relief A-1 and four defendants in the plaint for challenging the ex-parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 1064/1960 against the father of the plaintiffs late Ganga Manjhi. They further claimed that earlier they had no knowledge or information of the said suit or the decree passed therein and for the first time on 25.11.2000 they learnt about the same when their lawyer saw the written statement. This amendment petition having been rejected by the impugned order, one of the plaintiffs has filed this civil revision. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited several decisions, such as, Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1267, Seth Srenikbhai Kasturbhai and others etc. vs. Seth Chandulal Kasturchand and others reported in AIR 1997 Patna 179 [: 1998(1) PLJR 433 ], Mazlish-E-Shoora (Edara Khair-e-lmmal) vs. Quass Siddikki & Anr. reported in 1999(2) PLJR 129, B.K. Narayana Pillai vs. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr. reported in 2000(1) PLJR (S.C.) 111 and Central Coal Fields Limited vs. Smt. Lilawati Devi & Ors. reported in 2000(2) PLJR 691 in support of his claim that amendment can be claimed even at belated stage beyond limitation. 6. reported in 1999(2) PLJR 129, B.K. Narayana Pillai vs. Parameswaran Pillai & Anr. reported in 2000(1) PLJR (S.C.) 111 and Central Coal Fields Limited vs. Smt. Lilawati Devi & Ors. reported in 2000(2) PLJR 691 in support of his claim that amendment can be claimed even at belated stage beyond limitation. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contended that they had filed their written statement in the court on 10.10.1996 and on that date itself they had served a copy thereof upon the plaintiffs counsel, in paragraph 18 of which they had specifically mentioned about the said Title Suit No. 1064 of 1960 and the decree passed therein and hence the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the said suit and decree as far back as on 10.10.1996, but they did not chose to challenge the same within the time prescribed and filed the aforesaid amendment petition on 27.11.2000 much beyond the period of three years and hence the amendment being barred by law was rightly rejected by the trial court. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the opposite parties cited several decisions, such as, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1956 B.L.J.R. 583, Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others reported in AIR 1957 Supreme Court 363, A.K. Gupta and sons Ltd. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 96 and Smt. Ganga Bai vs. Vijay Kumar and others reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1126, which fully showed that barred claims cannot be introduced in a suit by way of amendment. 7. From perusal of the pleadings and the materials on record it is quite apparent that though the plaintiffs earlier may not have any knowledge or information about Title Suit No. 1064 of 1960 and the decree passed therein but after receiving the copy of the written statement on 10.10.1996 they definitely had full knowledge and information about the said suit and their statement that they learnt about it only on 25.11.2000 was clearly wrong and baseless. 8. 8. Furthermore, the filing of the petition on 27.11.2000 by the plaintiffs challenging the validity of the said decree by way of amendment of plaint was clearly much beyond the period of three years as prescribed in Article 59 of the Limitation Act and hence the said claim was clearly barred by law. 9. The law is well settled in this regard as in case of Radhika Devi vs. Bajrangi Singh and others reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2358 and several other cases. Hence, I hold that delay in making the prayer for amendment by itself is no ground to refuse the same, but if the amendment introduces a new case which is barred by limitation or by any law, the court has no option but to refuse the said amendment. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the amendment with regard to addition of a paragraph and a relief with respect to the said earlier suit cannot be legally allowed and furthermore since the amendment for addition of parties, who were impleaded in the earlier suit, was also connected with the aforesaid barred claim, the same also was fit to be rejected. 11. The learned court below has, thus, rightly rejected the above mentioned amendment petition by the impugned order and hence I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the said order. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed, but there would be no order as to cost.