Amendments to a plaint are permissible before trial commences if they do not introduce a new cause of action that is time-barred, preserving the rights of the defendants.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.)

This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 01.06.2016, in I.A.No.236 of 2015 in O.S.No.20 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, (in short ‘the court below’), which was filed under order VI, rule 17 and 151 of CPC to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint as described in the petition.

2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants before the court below.

3. The plaintiffs i.e petitioners herein have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property. It is contended that while preparing the chief affidavit, it was found that the sale deed in question dated 05.02.1999 executed by 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent as spurious, sham and nominal, but they did not seek relief of declaration. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, an application has been in the said suit vide I.A.No.236 of 2015. The trial court after hearing on both the sides held that there was no relief sought by the plaintiffs in the suit. The limitation for seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deed is 3 years. Therefore, the plea taken by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and that dismissed the petition. Assailing the same, the present revision came to be filed.

4. Heard M/s Unnam Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. M. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that in the plaint the plaintiffs had categorically claimed that the alleged Sale Deed dated 05.02.009 is sham and concocted and the same is illegal. Therefore, dthe proposed amendment sought to be brought in the plaint with respect to the said cancellation of the sale deed dated 05.02.2009 could never be presumed to be an amendment which would prejudicially affect the rights of the defendants under the law of limitation. Moreover, the trial court ought to have considered Section 14 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, in computing the period of limitation for the purpose of considering the relief sought for cancellation of sale deed. Further contended that the proposed amendment does not bring any new cause of action on the new basis of new set of facts and more over, the proposed amendment is being sought for even before the commencement of the trial and therefore, the defendants would have ample opportunity to file their additional written statement if any with regard to those aspects. Hence the revision is liable to be allowed.

6. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent reiterated the contentions urged in before the court below and placed on record the case status of the suit viz., 26.09.2018, 10.10.2018, 24.10.2018, 01.11.2018, 14.11.2018 and 26.11.2018 and contended that the trial has been commenced and PW-1 was present and Ex.A12 to A21 documents marked and the suit was posted for cross examination on 06.12.2018. Therefore, question of amending plaint does not arise after commencement of trial and that revision is not maintainable, same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in “ Pothuraju Narasaiah v. Suroju Nagamani and Others , 2012(2) ALD 82 ” wherein it was held as follows:

“5. The principles relating to the amendment of the pleadings have been illustrated by Sarkar, J, in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in A.K.Gupta & Sons Limited v. Damodar Vally Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96, in the following words:

7. It is not i