( 1 ) AS common questions of fact and law are involved in these two revision petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) C. R. P. NO. 2514 of 2002 is filed against the order dated 22-3-2002 in I. A. No. 286 of 2001 in O. S. No. 91 of 1997. C. R. P. No. 2652 of 2002 is filed against the order dt. 22-3-2002 in i. A. No. 285 of 2002 in O. S. No. 90 of 1997, on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, narayanapet.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs are different, whereas the defendants are common in both the suits. The petitioners - plaintiffs filed the respective suits for perpetual injunction. It was their plea that the suit schedule property was purchased under two registered sale deeds dated 20-8-1988 and that on 10-10-1997 and 12-11-1997, the defendants tried to dispossess them and, therefore, the suits. It appears, initially, there was an ad interim injunction which was later vacated and as on today, there is no injunction against the respondents - defendants. Be that as it may, in both the suits, the respondents - defendants filed written statements opposing the suits. Their plea was that the property is governed by the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ( the Act ), that the tenancy Tribunal conducted an enquiry and granted occupancy certificate under Section 38-E of the Act, that those proceedings were challenged by the alleged landlords/owners in appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed and that against the orders of the appellate authority, revision petitions were filed before this Court, which were also dismissed. They also alleged that in view of the above, the suits are not maintainable.

( 4 ) THE suits were filed in 1997. After dismissal of the injunction petitions, the petitioners - plaintiffs filed two I. As as mentioned hereinabove seeking amendment of the pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. They wanted to amend the prayer to that of seeking declaration. In effect, they wanted to convert the suit for perpetual injunction into a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

( 5 ) THE trial Court by orders dt. 22-3-2002, dismissed the applications on the ground that they are barred by limitation and that if the amendment is allowed, it would cause injustice to the respondents - defendants.

( 6 ) SRI K. Mahipathy Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the CRPs. would submit that while considering the applications for amendment of the pleadings, the Court should adopt a liberal approach. He would also submit that even in the original suits all the facts are pleaded and no effort was made to bring new facts on record and by allowing the amendment even if the question of limitation is involved, having regard to the plea in the written statement that the suits are not maintainable, the lower Court ought to have allowed the applications.

( 7 ) SRI G. Ramakrishnaiah, learned counsel for the respondents - defendants, per contra, contends that by reasons of section 99 of the Act, the suits are barred by limitation and if the amendment is allowed, it amounts to conferring jurisdiction on the civil court which is specifically barred by the statute. He would also submit that the respondents were granted occupancy certificate under Section 38-E of the Act way back in 1973 and when the plea was prima facie accepted and the injunction petitions were dismissed, the petitioners - plaintiffs filed these applications, which are not maintainable.

( 8 ) THE law with regard to amendment of pleadings is well settled. It is axiomatic that a party to a suit can always seek amendment of pleadings at any time during the trial or during its pendency before appellate Court. It is also well settled that the Court should bestow liberal approach in dealing with the amendment applications. The grant of applications for amendment would, however, be subject to three limitatio