1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and respondents.

2. Rule.

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties and the petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 30th August, 2017, passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ichalkarani, thereby allowing the respondents' application filed under Order VI rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend the plaint.

5. The petitioners herein are the original defendants. Respondents have filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and also for injunction restraining the petitioners from creating third party interests therein. The suit was filed on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 18.5.1998, executed by the petitioners in favour of respondents. A specific pleading was made in the plaint that as the petitioners were creating third party rights in the suit property, it has become necessary for the respondents to file suit, seeking injunction and declaration over the suit property and restraining the petitioners from creating third party interests therein.

6. However, when the suit came up for hearing, it was noticed by the respondents that the relief of specific performance of the contract was not expressly asked for in the plaint and therefore, they moved an application before the trial Court pointing out technical infirmity in the suit and for seeking specific performance of the agreement and consequential amendment was accordingly sought in the plaint for adding the clause of valuation of the suit claim for the payment of Court fees.

7. This application, however, came to be strongly resisted by the petitioners, contending inter alia that the relief claimed by proposed amendment is barred by Law of Limitation. It was submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2000; whereas the application for amendment is filed in the year 2017 i.e., after about 16 years and therefore, amendment sought is not only at a very belated stage but even Proviso to Order VI rule 17 CPC would come into play, as the trial of the suit has already commenced.

8. The trial Court was, however, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, pleased to allow the amendment application, by its impugned order, holding that the respondents are not introducing any new case and in order to determine the real question and controversy between the parties, proposed amendment is necessary. The trial Court, further held that as still the evidence in the suit is yet to be led, the petitioners will have an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent, and hence no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners. In order to compensate the petitioners for the delay in allowing such amendment, the trial Court, accordingly allowed the application with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

9. While challenging the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proposed amendment is expressly barred by the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as the amendment is sought after the issues are framed and the suit is fixed for recording of evidence. Secondly, it was submitted that the said amendment is sought after a period of about 16 years from the date of filing of the suit and no explanation, worth the name, is given for such delay and on this count also, the trial Court should have rejected the same. Thirdly, it is submitted that by the proposed amendment, respondents want to add time a barred claim and therefore, such application for amendment should have been rejected as it is definitely going to cause prejudice to the petitioners.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order by pointing out that the cause of action for filing the suit was the execution of said agreement and it was sufficiently pleaded in the plaint. Hence proposed amendment does