The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting unambiguous statutory provisions and exercising discretion in allowing amendments that serve the cause of justice.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.255 of 2002 before the learned District Munsif, Thiruvallur, aggrieved over the order of the said Court in dismissing their application for amendment of the pleadings, have come up with the present civil revision petition.

2. The said suit has been filed by the petitioners herein against the deceased one D.K.Sriramulu and others for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Since the first defendant D.K.Sriramulu died, his legal representatives have been brought on record as D.2, D.3, D.9 and D.10. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed an application in I.A.No.786 of 2009 for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The amendment that has been sought for by the petitioners was "directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay to the plaintiffs unpaid purchase money of Rs.5-1/2 lakhs together with interest at 12% per annum from 26.8.2002 till the date of realisation" or in the alternative "to direct the sale of the suit property through Court".

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have borrowed money from the deceased first defendant D.K.Sriramulu on two occasions. As per his request, they have executed a simple mortgage in favour of his son, the third defendant. Due to pressure exercised by the deceased first defendant, a sale deed was executed on 26.8.2002. The deceased first defendant though promised to pay the balance consideration, has not honoured the same. Hence, a lawyer's notice dated 3.9.2002 was sent demanding the balance sale consideration. Later, defendants 1 to 3 attempted to take possession of the suit property and hence, the said suit has been filed. Pending suit, on 11.3.2008, an application for amendment has been filed by them incorporating the prayer referred to above.

4. In the said application for amendment, respondents 2 and 3 have raised various grounds by filing a counter affidavit. They totally denied that the balance consideration has to be payable.

5. On considering the rival submissions, the application filed by the petitioners for amendment seeking incorporation of the prayer for refund of the money or alternatively sale of the property to them was dismissed. The present civil revision petition is directed against the said order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners put forth the following contentions viz.,

(i) Pre-trial amendment, as in the present case, has to be allowed liberally, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court.

(ii) The petitioners have got right over the property under Section 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, amendment of prayer that has been sought for by them is governed under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not under Article 53 and 55 of the Act.

(iii) Since the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, the same has to be agitated only at the time of trial and cannot be determined at the time of deciding the application for amendment.

8. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that --

(a) Section 53 of the Limitation Act clearly contemplates that any suit filed by a vendor of an immovable property seeking recovery of unpaid purchase money should do so within a period of three years from the date of completion of sale. In the case on hand, since the sale deed was executed on 26.8.2002 itself by the petitioners, the application for amendment filed on 11.3.2008 claiming refund of money is clearly barred by limitation.

(b) The amendment of prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be brought within the purview of Article 62 of the Limitation Act thereby invoking the charge provided under Section 55 (4) (b) of Transfer of Property Act. Article 62 of Limitation Act envisages where any suit is filed for recovery