JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 1st March, 2002, passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that the facts which are sought to be introduced by way of amendment and the relief based on such facts having been barred by law of limitation, the petitioner is not entitled to amend the plaint as proposed by the petitioner.

3. While challenging the impugned order, it was sought to be contended that issue of limitation can very well be raised in the suit itself and the amendment could not have been refused on that count in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others)1, reported in 2001(2) S.C.C. 472.

4. Undisputedly, the suit is for partition of the property filed by the co-owner. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner has sought to add two more properties to be the subject-matter of partition and certain facts relating to a deed of partition, dated 6th January, 1982 and for relief for declaration that the said partition-deed being not binding upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the sale-deed in the course of hearing of the matter and, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking the amendment to the plaint and relief in relation to the said sale-deed.

5. The suit being for partition, merely because the plaintiff has two more properties, and those properties are not made the subject matter of the suit for partition, that cannot be justifiable objection for proposed inclusion of the two properties. Apparently, therefore, the impugned order as far as it relates to rejection of the application for inclusion of two more properties in para 1 of the plaint, cannot be sustained and to that extent the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application for amendment seeking inclusion of two more properties in para 1 is to be allowed.

6. As far as the other amendments are concerned, undisputedly they relate to the document dated 6th January, 1982. The document has been duly registered and has also been acted upon by the authorities for the purpose of carrying out the mutation entries and the revenue entries based on such document. All these facts are borne out from the application for amendment itself. Undisputedly, the application was filed on 12th September, 2001. The application on the face of it, does not disclose any specific date on which the petitioner came to know about the deed for partition dated 6th January, 1982. The suit for declaration regarding the validity or illegality in respect of any document can be filed within three years from the date of the knowledge of such document. In the absence of disclosure about a specific date pertaining to the knowledge of the said document to the petitioner, the date of registration of such document would be presumed to be the date of the knowledge of the document to the petitioner. Undisputedly, the document was registered in the year 1982. Being so, the application is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.

7. The decision of the Apex Court in Ragu Thilak D. John's case was in the matter that the party to the proceedings had filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. for the amendment of the plaint, in view of development subsequent to the institution of the proceedings in the said case, and this is apparent from the observation of the Apex Court in para 4 of the judgment in Ragu Thilak D. John's case (supra) and the same reads thus :

"In view of subsequent developments, the appellant filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 for the amendment of the plaint for adding paras 8(a) to 8(f) in his plaint. The trial Court rejected his prayer and the revision petition filed against that order was dismissed by the High Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document