ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Present petitioners are the substituted legal heirs of the original plaintiff, who filed the suit for impleading Union of India through South Eastern Railways, Garden Reach, Kolkata for declaration of right, title and interest over the schedule property as detailed in the plaint. 2. During the pendency of the suit, it is alleged that 16 shops situated on the suit premises were demolished by the Railways in 2016. 3. Pursuant to the demolition of shops, plaintiff/petitioners filed petition for amendment in plaint to incorporate the following prayers: - I. Sub para 2 of para 17 of the plaint “compensation as per report submitted by pleader commissioner appointed by this Court for damages caused by illegal and unlawful act of defendants whereby and whereunder the 16 shops of plaintiff were demolished by defendants”. In the place of “for confirmation of possession of plaintiff over the schedule land.” II. Sub para 3 of para number 17 be completely deleted by sub para no.4 be treated as sub para 3 and sub para 5 be treated as sub para 4, by way of amendment of relief portion of the plaint. III. By adding para no.15(iii) “That the cause of action also arose on and from 20/2/2020, when officials of defendant number one, finally refused to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by him by the illegal and unlawful act of demolishing the Pakka 16 shops standing in schedule land since/last 1945. 4. The amendment petition was rejected inter alia on the ground that as per the averment, the demolition took place on 20.10.2016, whereas the amendment petition was filed on 31.01.2022 which was hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the event of demolition of shop took place after filing of the suit, therefore, the issue of paying compensation and removing the earlier relief of permanent injunction to be belated arose subsequent to it. The relief of payment of compensation was not time barred as the petitioners/plaintiff after the demolition had moved before the competent authority of the Railways to make payment of compensation which was not exceeded till 20.02.2020 and then the occasion arose for making this prayer for amendment of compensation. It is contended that the payment of compensation was not time barred in this factual scenario. 6. It is contended that the payment of compensation was not time barred in this factual scenario. 6. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of Railways that the issue whether Railways encroached over the property of the petitioners was raised without success in W.P. (C) No.1515 of 2016. The order passed by learned Single Judge was affirmed in L.P.A. and petitioners/plaintiff failed to show that Railways had encroached on their property. The review petition was also rejected. It is further submitted that the issue in this case was framed on 14.06.2019, whereas the amendment petition has been filed on 31.01.2022. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the matter for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in refusing the amendment petition on the ground that the claim for compensation for demolition of shops was time barred. 8. The crux of the matter is the claim of the title by the plaintiff and the question of compensation will arise only if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit to prove his title over the suit property which is being claimed by the Railways. If the plaintiff succeeds, then the question will be whether the demolition resulted in loss and if at all it was time barred or not. 9. Undisputed fact is that demolition took place in 2016, whereas compensation has been claimed by way of amendment in 2022. Not a chit of paper has been produced either before the trial Court or before this Court to show that any claim for compensation was raised before competent authority and any order was passed on it. In this view of matter, the claim of compensation is clearly time barred having been filed after the statutory period of limitation. Thus, there is no infirmity in the rejection of the proposed amendment I and III is concerned 10. So far amendment No.II, is concerned, there is merit in the plea that on being dispossessed from the Suit property, the prayer for permanent injunction becomes infructuous and therefore, it needs to be deleted. Therefore, the amendment No. II, is fit to be allowed. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly, partly allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.