The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings if it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, and the limitation for seeking certain reliefs may not apply in all cases.

ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.02.2021 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.125 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, the petitioners for their urgent family and business need requested the respondent to lend a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan and the respondent also agreed to give the said amount on a condition that the petitioners ought to have executed a debt deed with respect to the suit property for security purpose and on further condition to execute sale deed in respect of the said debt deed, accordingly, the petitioners have executed a debt deed dated 06.03.2013 and sale deed dated 25.10.2013. Further, the respondent also provided in writing to reconvey the same when the petitioners discharged the said amount. Inspite of requests made by the petitioners to receive the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the respondent failed to do so, hence the suit has been filed by the petitioners. Moreover, the written statement was also filed by the respondent. In the meantime, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 to amend the plaint stating that only after reading the written statement, the petitioners had knowledge that they have ommitted the prayer seeking declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 25.10.2013 as null and void. The court below after considering the averments and pleadings on either side, dismissed the said I.A, stating that the same suffers from limitation. As against the same, the petitioners have come to this Court by way of the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the court below failed to take note of the fact that the petitioners had specifically pleaded that the respondent had demanded more money to reconvey the suit property in their favour and they had never stated in the plaint that the respondent denied their title to the suit property.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that the court below failed to follow the well settled principle of law that the amendment which is deemed to be barred by limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the court below ought to have allowed the application and decided the issue of limitation at the time of deciding the suit on merits. Further, the denial of title of the petitioners by the respondent could be decided only through both oral and documentary evidence depending on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the court below failed to appreciate the fact that the present application for amendment now sought for is filed prior to commencement of trial and therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be reversed. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the order passed by this Court reported in 2015 (1) CTC 820 [Chitra Vs.Kannan] to substantiate their case.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that when the petitioners had prior knowledge about the denial of their suit property by the respondent at the time of filing of the suit itself, the present amendment now sought for, is bared by limitation and the court below rightly took note of the said fact and dismissed the petition, hence the same does not require any interference, thereby pleaded to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition. Further, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (6) CTC 562 [L.C.Hanumanthappa Vs.H.B.Shivakumar] and the order passed by this Court reported in 2015 (2) CTC 365 [Sellayi (deceased) 1.Chinnammal & Others Vs. Valliammal @ Pappu & others.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documen