IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments introducing claims, which are time barred, could be allowed if there is a factual basis in the original plaint and no new case is being set up by the plaintiff to the surprise of defendants.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Revision Petition is filed against the interlocutory order dtd. 3/2/2018 passed in I.A.No.943 of 2015 in O.S.No.1486 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the main suit. Originally the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking to declare the Sale Deed dtd. 3/10/2012 as null, void, unenforceable, liable to be set aside and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

3. The facts leading to the suit are that the plaintiff had approached the 1stdefendant for availing loan of Rs.25, 000.00 and in that context, the 1stdefendant contemplated a condition to execute General Power of Attorney (for short "G.P.A") with regard to the agricultural land in the name of the 1stdefendant. The plaintiff left without any alternative executed the G.P.A and the same was registered on 4/3/2010. The plaintiff agreed to pay the loan amount with interest @ 24% p.a.

4. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was not allowed to go through the contents of the G.P.A and the plaintiff subsequently called upon the 1stdefendant to cancel the G.P.A and return the original Title Deed, as the plaintiff is ready to discharge the entire debt with interest. As the 1stdefendant disagreed, the plaintiff got issued a Notice dtd. 28/9/2012 calling upon the 1stdefendant to return the original Title Deed dtd. 22/1/2009, while canceling the G.P.A. Though the notice was received there was no response. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the 1stdefendant with fraudulent motive prepared to sell away the plaint schedule property and had executed a registered Sale Deed, dtd. 3/10/2012 in favour of the 2nddefendant. It was also pleaded that all averments made in the G.P.A-cum-Agreement of Sale, dtd. 4/3/2010 are incorrect. Hence, the suit was filed.

5. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. While so, the plaintiff filed an application under Order

6. Rule 17 of C.P.C seeking to amend the plaint with regard to the relief claimed. By virtue of amendment, the plaintiff sought to add Para 11-A where under additional pleadings were urged with regard to the fraud played by the 1stdefendant in executing the Agreement of Sale- cum-General Power of Attorney, dtd. 4/3/2010 and that the plaintiff filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police against the defendant Nos.1 & 2 and a Writ Petition was also filed before this Court for a direction against the Police authorities. In the prayer portion, the amendment to cancel the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dtd. 4/3/2010 was sought. 6. The defendants filed their counter opposing the same and the primary objection taken by the defendants was that the amendment is barred by limitation, as the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dtd. 4/3/2010, which was sought to be canceled by virtue of amendment dtd. 27/10/2015.

7. The Trial Court vide its order dtd. 3/2/2018 allowed the same and was of the opinion that the question of limitation can be made subject matter of issue after allowing the amendment. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition by the defendants.

8. Heard Mr.Keerthi Teja, Kondaveeti, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Learned Counsel for the Respondents.

9. The point for consideration is whether a claim barred by limitation could be sought by way of an amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.

10. A reading of the original plaint at Para 5 shows that the General Power of Attorney dtd. 4/3/2010 was obtained without allowing the plaintiff to go through the contents of the document and that the defendants in spite of plaintiff's offering to discharge the loan amount did not come forward to cancel the document. Apart from the fact that t