Declaratory suit without consequential relief is defective; a time-barred amendment cannot defeat an accrued limitation defence.

A suit seeking only a declaration, when further relief is available, is defective under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act because the plaintiff must claim the consequential relief in the same proceeding. If the omitted relief was available when the suit was filed but becomes time-barred before amendment, pleadings cannot be amended to introduce that barred claim and defeat the defendant's accrued limitation defence. Authorities cited for a contrary result were distinguishable on their facts. The amendment was therefore refused, and the suit as framed could not succeed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit seeking only a declaration, without consequential relief, was maintainable, and whether an amendment adding the barred consequential relief could be allowed after limitation had expired.

Analysis: Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act requires a plaintiff, when able to seek further relief than a bare declaration, to claim that further relief in the same suit. The omission is fatal to the declaratory claim. The relief sought by amendment was one that was available when the suit was instituted, and by the time amendment was sought it had become barred by limitation. Amendment of pleadings cannot be permitted so as to defeat the defendant's accrued defence of limitation. The authorities relied on by the appellant were distinguishable because they did not justify introducing a new barred relief in appellate proceedings.

Conclusion: The amendment was rightly refused, and the suit as framed could not succeed. The decision is against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.

---