Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.09.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 64 of 2014 by learned Munsif- II, Siwan whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the petition dated 04.08.2016 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’)

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial court and the respondents are the defendants. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit land as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The matter was at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and examination-in-chief of the plaintiff was filed and at that time, a petition for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff making a prayer for amendment in paragraph 1, 8, 13 and in the relief portion of the plaint. The learned counsel further submits that through these amendments, two sale deeds bearing nos.12929 and 12930, both dated 09.08.1982 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 have been sought to be declared null and void. The learned counsel further submits that proper foundation has already been laid in the plaint in paragraph 9. The learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the sale deeds in the year 2014 and mentioned this fact in plaint, but due to inadvertence and poor drafting, the same could not be mentioned in relief portion and, thereafter, the amendment petition has been filed on 04.08.2016. The learned counsel further submits that in order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and for determination of the real controversy between the parties, the amendments are necessary. The learned trial court has wrongly observed that the amendment could change the nature of suit and there has been much delay in filing the petition for amendment. The learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the plaintiff has just started and only examination-in-chief of the plaintiff was filed. So the suit is still at the initial stage. The learned counsel further submits that the amendments are necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties and the learned trial court erred while rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiff and the impugned order be set aside and the petition of the plaintiff be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner/plaintiff wants to introduce time barred claim and has been seeking amendment in this regard. The sale deeds were executed in the year 1982 and under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period is only 3 years for seeking declaration against the sale deed. However, after more than 20 years, the plaintiff/petitioner wants to challenge the execution of the sale deeds and the same is time barred. The learned counsel further submits that there is no merit in the submission that the plaintiff was not having any knowledge since the plaintiff and the defendants are own brothers and the vendees of the defendants have already come in possession after the execution of the sale deeds and the plaintiff has all along been knowing about this fact, still he chose not to assail the sale deeds and has filed the application for amendment quite late and the same could not be allowed. The learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to show due diligence since the trial has started and after commencement of trial, the plaintiff was duty bound to explain why the am