ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. This is plaintiffs writ petition calling in question order dated 25.2.2017 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in O.S. No. 843 of 2004 - Annexure-L dismissing the application - I.A. No. 5 for amendment of the plaint filed by plaintiff.

2. Petitioner herein instituted a suit in O.S. No. 843 of 2004 against defendant for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property which is described as land bearing Sy. No. 139/1E measuring 1 acre 7 guntas which is more fully described in the schedule.

3. On service of suit summons, defendant appeared and filed his written statement apart from contending that suit property and the adjacent property bearing No. 142/1A4 was purchased by the defendant's mother under a registered sale deed dated 9.11.1972. It was also contended that plaintiff is busy body in the village and has no manner of right, title or interest in respect of suit schedule property and plaintiff along with other illegal elements of the society, is forcibly trying to grab land belonging to others. It was also contended that on account of certain documents having been created, revenue appeals had been filed by defendant before revenue authorities and in a writ petition filed by defendant before this Court, this Court is stated to have recorded a finding that order passed in LRF No. 3429/75-76 relied upon by plaintiff is a bogus document. It is also contended by defendant that writ appeal came to be dismissed and on account of Court records having been tampered, suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against plaintiff and he was sentenced to undergo one day imprisonment for tampering of Court records, apart from relying upon various documents and denying claim of the plaintiff to the suit property.

4. During the pendency of suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking amendment of plaint by incorporating two prayers and it reads as under:

"(a) declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property.

(b) consequently, pass a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant herein, their workers, agents, legal heirs, representatives or any other person or persons claiming through or under him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff herein.

(c) pass such other reliefs or orders as deemed fit in the end of justice and award along with costs of this suit in the ends of justice."

5. Said application came to be resisted by the defendant by filing a detailed statement of objections as per Annexure-K and Trial Court after considering rival contentions, by impugned order has rejected application on the ground that defendant had filed written statement on 5.6.2006 and title, ownership as well as possession claimed by plaintiff had been seriously disputed by defendant and inspite of plaintiff having knowledge of these facts, did not choose to amend the pleading by seeking declaration of title over suit schedule property. It is further opined by the Trial Court under the impugned order that when the application for amendment had been filed on 14.9.2012 to convert the suit for injunction to the suit for declaration and under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for limitation of three years in respect of suits relating to declaration from the date when the right sue accrues and said application having been filed after six years from the date of filing of written statement, plaintiff had slept over his right and said claim is hopelessly barred by limitation. Trial Court was also of the view that plaintiff has filed one more suit in O.S. No. 476 of 1997 whereunder defendant had seriously disputed the title of plaintiff over suit property and these facts were well within the knowledge of plaintiff and as such, application filed by the plaintiff is belated and barred