The right to sue for declaration of title arises when the defendant denies the plaintiff's title, and the decision to allow amendment is based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

G. Chockalingam, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant, against the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode, in I.A. No. 604 of 2012 in O.S. No. 82 of 2009, in and by which, the said I.A. filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, for amendment of the plaint, was allowed with costs.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that the trial Court, without application of mind, passed an erroneous order allowing the application filed for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the suit was filed for mandatory injunction and the petitioner/defendant has filed his written statement on 10.08.2009 by disputing the title of the respondent/plaintiff and also the maintainability of the suit. The learned counsel also submitted that the said amendment application has been filed only after the examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and further, without assigning any reason, the amendment application has been filed. It is also submitted that the trial Court has failed to note that the amendment is totally time barred, because the respondent/plaintiff is not having limitation for filing a fresh suit in respect of the relief sought to be included by way of amendment and therefore, time barred amendment is devoid of merits. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the order of the trial Court may be set aside and the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed.

3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (6) CTC 562 [L.C. Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar], wherein, at Paragraph Nos. 14 and 29, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:--

"14. Given this statement of the law, it is clear that the present amendment of the plaint is indeed time-barred in that the right to sue for declaration of title first arose on 16th May 1990 when in the very first Written Statement the Defendant had pleaded, in para 13 in particular, that the suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable in that the plaintiff had failed to establish title with possession over the suit property. The only question that remains to be answered is in relation to the Doctrine of Relation Back insofar as it applies to amendments made under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

15 to 28..........

29. Applying the law thus laid down by this Court to the facts of this case, two things become clear. First, in the original Written Statement itself dated 16th May 1990, the Defendant had clearly put the Plaintiff on Notice that it had denied the Plaintiff's title to the Suit property. A reading of an isolated Para in the Written Statement, namely, para 2 by the Trial Court on the facts of this case has been correctly commented upon adversely by the High Court in the judgment under Appeal. The original Written Statement read as a whole unmistakably indicates that the defendant had not accepted the plaintiff's title. Secondly, while allowing the amendment, the High Court in its earlier judgment dated 28th March 2002 had expressly remanded the matter to the Trial Court, allowing the Defendant to raise the plea of limitation. There can be no doubt that on an Application of Khatri Hotels Private Limited (supra), the right to sue for declaration of title first arose on the facts of the present case on 16th May 1990 when the original Written Statement clearly denied the Plaintiff's title. By 16th May 1993, therefore, a Suit based on declaration of title would have become time-barred. It is clear that the Doctrine of Relation Back would not apply to the facts of this case for the reason that the Court which allowed the amendment expressly allowed it subject to the plea of limitation, indicating thereby that there are no special or extraordinary circumstances in the preset case to warrant the Doctrine of Relation Back app