ORDER :

J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.95 of 2024 in O.S.No.173 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri R.Rama Brahmma, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.173 of 2017. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.173 of 2017 before the Court below.

4. Brief facts of the case:

4.1. Plaintiff No.1-M.Ram Reddy filed suit in O.S.No.154 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy against respondent No.1/defendant No.1 for specific performance of agreement of sale and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. Ac.3-00 of land covered by Survey Nos.833 part, 834 part, 836 part, 837 part and 838 part at Patancheru Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District (erstwhile Medak District). In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed written statement in the month of September, 2007, wherein it is averred that the suit schedule property along with other properties were sold in favour of Srinidhi Industries, represented by its partner M.S.Lokaiah, through registered sale deed dated 11.05.2006 and the possession was also delivered. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 died on 04.03.2020 and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were came on record as his legal heirs. Defendant Nos.2 to 9 were impleaded as party respondents. Pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, in Transfer O.P.No.53 of 2012, the above said suit was transferred to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, and renumbered as O.S.No.173 of 2017.

4.2. In the above suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.95 of 2024, seeking amendment of the plaint as well as prayer of the suit i.e., “that the alleged Registered Sale Deed, dated 11.05.2006 for the land to an extent of Ac.15-415 guntas, as null and void and not binding over the plaintiffs in any manner in respect of the suit schedule lands”. The Court below dismissed the above said application by its order 10.03.2025 on the ground of limitation, as the plaintiffs filed the application after lapse of 12 years, though they are having knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed, dated 11.05.2006 by defendant No.1 in favour of other defendants. Aggrieved by the above said order, the plaintiffs have filed the present civil revision petition.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs:

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that as per the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings. However, the Court below without properly appreciating the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, erroneously dismissed the application solely on the ground of limitation, even though the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial only and not at the interlocutory stage.

5.2. He further submitted that plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property through agreement of sale and when defendant No.1 had failed to perform his part of contract and to execute the registered sale deed, plaintiff No.1 had approached the Court and filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale in respect of Ac.3-00 of land. Defendant No.1, without informing plaintiff No.1, alienated the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 9 and executed the registered sale