Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27526 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2349 of 2020 Petitioner :- Smt. Ramrani And Ors. Respondent :- Rajjab Ali And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi,Amritanshu Tripathi,Om Kumar,Shweta Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Mohan Singh,Nagendra Kumar Khare Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. I.A. Nos.7, 8 & 9 of 2024 The applications have been filed seeking delay condonation, recall of the abatement as well as substitution on account of death of respondent Nos.1, 6 & 21. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. Abatement is recalled. The substitution is allowed. I.A. Nos.7, 8 & 9 of 2024 are disposed of. Let necessary correction in the array of the parties be carried out during the course of the day. I.A. No.10 of 2024 The application has been filed seeking for deletion/substitution on account of death of petitioner No.1. As the legal heirs of petitioner No.1 are already on record, the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to incorporate 'since deceased' after the name of petitioner No.1 during the course of the day. Order on Petition The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.02.2007, whereby the amendment application filed by the petitioner was rejected as well as the order dated 03.12.2019, whereby the revision was dismissed. The amendment application filed in a suit instituted in the year 1994. Through an amendment, a prayer was added for setting aside a sale deed, which was executed in the year 1973. The trial court rejected the application by holding that the petitioner was aware of the execution of the sale deed in two proceedings and the statement was also recorded during the consolidation proceedings, which demonstrate that the petitioner was aware, as such, the amendment application was dismissed holding that the relief sought by the petitioner would be barred by limitation. A similar view was taken by the revisional court also. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the petition, it has been stated that knowledge of the sale deed in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was only to the extent that Dularey was a witness to the memo of the Supurdgi. It is further stated that in the consolidation proceedings, the same were not in between Dularey and other persons and was in between defendants and Dularey had only stood as witness, as he was an illiterate villager, he could not understand the report. Considering the averments made in paragraph 23 of the petition, wherein it has been stated that Dularey was a witness in the proceedings in the year 1978, which fact has also been recorded in the two impugned orders to form a view that the relief claimed is highly belated and barred by limitation, no interference is called for. Further more, a suit, which barred by limitation cannot be entertained after the limitation expires and even the benefit of Section 5 is not applicable to suit. As such, I do not find any error in the two courts rejecting the amendment application on the ground of same being filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench