1. The plaintiff in O.S No.593 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District is the revision petitioner herein. The suit was filed for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the first defendant and his men and agents from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff filed I.A No.513 of 2015 for amending the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A No.513 of 2015, the plaintiff submitted that he filed the injunction suit on the strength of a settlement deed No.1812 of 2008, dated 08.05.2008, executed by the second defendant in his favour and that he has come to know that the said settlement deed has been cancelled. Since certain subsequent documents have been executed, the plaintiff thought it necessary to seek three additional declaratory reliefs. In particular, he wanted declaration of his right to title, possession and enjoyment over the suit property as per the settlement deed dated 08.05.2008. He also contended that the cancellation deed dated 04.06.2008 would not bind him. The third declaratory relief that was sought was that the sale deed dated 07.10.2008 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first and fourth defendants is illegal, null and void. The court below by order dated 09.08.2016 dismissed the said I.A. Questioning the same, this civil revision petition has been filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. At my express request, Shri.R.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel also made elaborate submissions with regard to the issues that arose for consideration in this civil revision petition. All the three counsel, namely, Shri.R.Vijayakumar, Shri.V.Meenakshisundaram and Shri.H.Arumugam filed their written submissions. I must place on record my sincere appreciation as well as gratitude to all the three learned counsel for the thoroughness with which they discharged their professional duties.

4. The facts first. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. He sought the relief of permanent injunction based on the settlement deed dated 08.05.2008. The suit was filed on 24.10.2008. The contesting defendants filed their written statement on 30.04.2009 not only denying the title of the plaintiff but also asserting their title on the strength of the cancellation deed dated 04.06.2008 and a subsequent sale deed dated 07.10.2008. The trial commenced and when the case was posted for cross examination of D.W 1 on 23.03.2015, I.A No.513 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to include the aforesaid declaratory prayers. The contesting defendants opposed the application on the ground that the proposed amendment to include the declaratory reliefs will be barred by limitation. There was also no due diligence on the part of the plaintiff and therefore, the requirements set out in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is not satisfied in this case. The court below held that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation. The cause of action first arose 30.04.2009 when the contesting defendants filed their written statement not only denying the plaintiff's title but also asserting their title over the suit property. The declaratory relief should have been sought for within three years therefrom.

5. Shri.H.Arumugam, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the issue on hand is clearly and squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (6) CTC 562 (L.C.Hanumanthappa vs. H.B.Shivakumar). The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also concerned with the case of a suit for permanent injunction. In the said suit, namely, O.S No.1386 of 1990 filed before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the plaintiff averred that he is the absolute owner, and in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. In the written statement filed on 16.05.1990, the defendant not only referred to his suit filed in O.S No.1650 of 1990 but a