Amendment cannot replace the cause of action; stale specific performance claims are barred by limitation.

Amendment under Section 153 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC may be allowed to resolve the real controversy, but not to introduce a wholly new and independent cause of action or alter the subject-matter of the suit; on that basis, the proposed amendment was impermissible. A suit for specific performance based on the pleaded contractual refusal was also found barred by limitation because the right to sue had accrued long before institution of proceedings and the delay was fatal. The appeal therefore succeeded, the liberty to amend was set aside, and the cross-appeal for specific performance was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether leave to amend could be granted so as to substitute a distinct and independent cause of action and change the subject-matter of the suit; (ii) Whether the suit for specific performance, founded on the pleaded contractual refusal, was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether leave to amend could be granted so as to substitute a distinct and independent cause of action and change the subject-matter of the suit.

Analysis: The governing provisions of Section 153 and Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permit amendment to determine the real question in controversy, but not to introduce a wholly new and independent cause of action or alter the subject-matter of the suit. The pleaded case was based on an alleged 1912 agreement, and after that case failed, the proposed amendment would have shifted the dispute to a different and earlier contract altogether.

Conclusion: The amendment was impermissible and the order granting liberty to amend was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for specific performance, founded on the pleaded contractual refusal, was barred by limitation.

Analysis: On the facts found, the contractual refusal had occurred many years before the suit was instituted. The claim for specific performance could have been enforced much earlier, and the delay was fatal to the action. The record also showed that the plaintiff's own pleading treated the later claim as a separate and different basis of relief.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and could not be maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the attempted amendment failed, and the cross-appeal for specific performance was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Amendment provisions cannot be used to introduce a new and independent cause of action or to change the subject-matter of the suit, and a stale claim for specific performance is barred where the right to sue had accrued long before institution of proceedings.

---