Amendments to pleadings cannot introduce time-barred claims, as this undermines the accrued rights of other parties involved.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 03.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.730 of 2022 in O.S.No.830 of 2013 on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint was allowed.

2. Heard Smt Manjari S.Ganu, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Swamiji, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.2 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit before the trial Court. It is mentioned in the affidavit that respondent Nos.4 to 9 are not necessary parties to the Revision Petition.

4. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

5. Brief factual matrix of the case relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition is that plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property; that the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement and one witness was examined as D.W-1 on behalf of the defendants on 06.06.2022, by taking leave of the Court vide order in I.A.No.53 of 2020 and he was also cross-examined; that the suit was coming up for plaintiffs’ side evidence and at that stage, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.730 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by inserting the relief to declare the sale deed dated 14.03.2013 bearing document No.1256/2013 as null and void and not binding on the parties. The plaintiffs averred that they were in severe financial crunch and also in view of health issues, they were unable to pay Court fee for seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deed at the time of filing of the suit, therefore, they filed the present application for amendment and were ready to pay the Court fee for the said relief.

6. The defendants filed counter resisting the said application contending that in page No.2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have mentioned about the execution of sale deed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 way back in the year 2013 and the plaintiffs who failed to seek the relief of cancellation of sale deed at the time of filing the suit, now, cannot be permitted to amend the same at this stage. They further averred that the reasons putforth by the plaintiffs are absurd and baseless and further, the proposed amendment is barred by limitation as on the date of filing of the application and as such, the application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

7. The trial Court, on due consideration of contentions of both the parties and by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Priave Limited and another , [2022(6) ALT 17 (SC)], allowed the application, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- payable by plaintiffs to defendant Nos.1 and 2 on or before 17.08.2023, vide the impugned order, by observing that probably due to poor financial status of plaintiffs, though such a ground is impermissible under law, since the trial in the suit has not practically commenced as the evidence of the plaintiffs’ is yet to be led and as the proposed amendments are ancillary to the main relief and are intended only for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 contended that the trial Court erred in allowing the application which is filed after commencement of trial an