1. The orders dated 29.8.2012 passed on three applications in O.S.No.342/1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Chitradurga are challenged in these writ petitions.

2. The respondents instituted O.S.No.342/1997 for declaration and injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner contested the suit. In the said proceedings, three applications were preferred by the respondents, one under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint, the second application was under Order VI Rule 14(d) read with Section 151 CPC seeking for condonation of delay in filing the application and the third application was under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC to call for the records and documents from Chitradurga Taluk office. These applications were resisted by the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge by three different orders dated 29.8.2012 allowed the applications and the said orders are impugned in these writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that these applications were barred by limitation as the same were filed on 20.6.2011, after 14 years from the date of institution of the suit and the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the question of limitation while allowing the application. Further, it was contended that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC places an embargo to move for an amendment of pleadings subsequent to the commencement of trial, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff changes the nature of the suit itself. It is argued that the plaintiff’s father originally was appointed as Kavaldar to manage the suit schedule property and subsequently, plaintiff continued to cultivate the suit schedule property on behalf of the respondent as kavaldar and he had no right, title over the suit schedule property. Further contentions of the petitioner are that the plaintiff originally filed the suit claiming his right as the cultivator of suit schedule property acquired through Swamiji’s agent based on a letter said to have been issued on behalf of defendant/mutt stating that instead of giving 1½ anna and 2 sares of food grains per day for the livelihood of kavaldar’s family, the kavaldar family shall cultivate the suit schedule property at their own cost and utilize the yield for their livelihood. The trial Judge allowing the amendment to the plaint as well as the other two applications, failed to examine the prejudice caused to the petitioner wherein the amendment sought for was a retraction from the admissions made in the plaint which is impermissible in law. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

(1) Ashuthosh Chaturvedi vs. Prano Devi and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2171

(2) Bharat Karsondas Thakkar vs. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2134

(3) Jagan Nath (deceased) Through LRs. vs. Chander Bhan and Others, (1988) 3 SCC 57

4. The learned counsel Sri Basavaraj Mekki appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned Civil Judge and also placed reliance on the following judgments:

(1) Ragu Thilak D. John vs. S. Rayappan and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 472

(2) B. Vasudeva Balegar vs. M/s. Sri Anjanaya Gas Agency, Indane Distributors and Another, ILR 2001 KAR 5655

5. After hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, it is clear that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs is after the commencement of the trial i.e., at the stage of examination in chief of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in their affidavit accompanying the application for amendment have stated that the documents as regards the inam Deputy Commissioner orders were ascertained only with the help of their present advocate and the said documents were already got marked as Exs.P.14 to P.18 and P.25 etc. In the original prayer it was pleaded that the petitioners are not the owners of suit schedule property as no proper records were available to show that, how the khatha o