This is plaintiffs writ petition assailing the order dated 07.10.2015 passed in O.S. No. 2650/2004 whereunder I.A. No. 26 filed by plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint, namely to insert Paragraph No. 8(a), addition of Paragraph No.9 and inclusion of additional prayers i.e., 2A and 2B as morefully pleaded in the interlocutory application Annexure-L came to be dismissed.

2. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths Sri. Vivek Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of writ petitioners-plaintiffs and Sri. H.S. Somnath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 15 and Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.17.

3. Since respondent Nos.1, 2 and 18 had not opposed the application I.A. No. 26, counsel for the petitioners has sought for dispensation of notice to these respondents by filing a memo. Said memo has been placed on record and notice to respondent No.1, 2 and 18 has been dispensed with at the risk of plaintiffs.

4. As noticed herein above application I.A. No. 26 for amendment of plaint came to be filed for introducing additional plea as well as additional prayers. After conclusion of trial and when matter was at the stage of cross examination of DWs.1 and 2, said applications came to be filed and it was resisted by defendant Nos.3 to 15 and 17 by filing detailed statement of objections as per Annexures L1 and L2. Trial Court after considering rival contentions, by impugned order has rejected said application vide order dated 07.10.2015 Annexure-A, on the ground that amendment sought for related to declaring the registered partition deed dated 01.01.1928 as not binding and there has been inordinate delay in filing said application. It is also held that plaintiffs though had opportunity to seek for amendment of the plaint in the year 2004 itself and also in the year 2011 when PW1 was cross examined by learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.2 and 3 and certain suggestions having put to said witnesses with regard to the Partition Deed dated 01.01.1928 still they did not seek for incorporating said amendment; Section 47 of the Registration Act contemplates that a registered document shall operate from the time which it would have commenced to operate if no registration; thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration and as such plaintiffs ought to have obtained certified copies when it came to their knowledge and there was no impediment for plaintiffs to obtain certified copies of those documents when it came to their knowledge and raise a plea in that regard and having not done so at earlier point of time, plea now sought to be put forward in the proposed amendment cannot be allowed on the ground of want of production of original document having not been produced by defendants or same having been produced in their evidence in 2014 is to be construed as plaintiffs having acquired knowledge. On these grounds Trial Court rejected I.A. No. 26.

5. It is the contention of Sri. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners that trial Court had not addressed itself to the issue of Section 17 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘Act’) whereunder it enables the plaintiffs or the applicants to putforth plea now sought to be purforth by plaintiffs when they have discovered fraud or mistake and he would contend that in the instant case the documents which have now sought to be pleaded is an out come of fraud namely Partition Deed dated 01.01.1928 and sale deed dated 09.12.1927 were produced on 31.07.2014 and they were got marked as Exs.P1 and P2 on 12.03.2015 and immediately thereafter i.e., on 25.03.2015 application for amendment had been filed and as such the embargo of limitation placed in Article 58 has to be read along with Section 17 of Limitation Act which itself provides for such suit to be instituted when su