Important Points:
The amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than, a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. When what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended, bar of limitation is not a good ground to refuse amendment.

JUDGMENT :

When does the trial in a suit commence? This is the core issue for consideration in the instant case.

2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.249/2014 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur.

3. The suit is instituted seeking the following reliefs. (1) A decree, setting aside document No.1768/2009 of S.R.O, Anchal. (2) A decree of declaration of the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. (3) A decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, committing any acts of waste therein and causing any obstruction to the possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs.

4. The crux of the averments in the plaint is as follows. The second plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant on 22.09.2008. The plaintiffs had borrowed a further amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the defendant on 20.10.2008. The defendant wanted execution of a sale deed in his favour in respect of the property owned by the first plaintiff as security for the loan amount. As the plaintiffs had no other option, the first plaintiff executed sale deed No.1768 in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendant on 16.07.2009. It is not a legally valid document. There was no consideration for the sale deed. The sale deed has not come into existence. The possession of the property was not given to the defendant. The plaint schedule property is still in the possession of the plaintiffs. The sale deed was executed only as a security for the amount borrowed by the plaintiffs from the defendant. The plaintiffs repaid Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendant towards the principal amount. The defendant is liable to reconvey the property to the plaintiffs on paying him the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.

5. The defendant filed written statement raising mainly the following contentions. There was no loan transaction between him and the plaintiffs as alleged in the plaint. He purchased the plaint schedule property from the first plaintiff as per sale deed No.1768/2009 of S.R.O. Anchal, on payment of proper consideration. The plaint schedule property is under the ownership and possession of the defendant. No person other than the defendant has got right and possession over the property. The suit is barred by limitation.

6. On 18.09.2017, the plaintiffs filed an application as I.A.No.1789/2017 (Ext.P3) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') for amendment of the plaint. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs sought deletion of the relief claimed in the suit for setting aside document No.1768/2009. The plaintiffs also sought a new relief to grant a decree directing the defendant to reconvey the plaint schedule property in their favour on receiving the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from them. The plaintiffs also sought necessary amendment to the valuation portion of the plaint.

7. The defendant filed objection to Ext.P3 application, raising various contentions.

8. As per Ext.P6 order, the trial court allowed Ext.P3 application.

9. The defendant has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and propriety of Ext.P6 order.

10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions. (1) The application for amendment of the plaint was filed at a highly belated stage. Ext.P6 order was passed by the trial court without taking into consideration the bar under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. (2) The proposed amendment, if allowed, would introduce a new cause of action for the suit and it is not permissible. (3) The new relief claimed by the plaintiffs, by the proposed amendment, is barred by limitation.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents ha