ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 01.05.2024 in I.A.No.154 of 2024 in O.S.No.141 of 2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda.

2. Heard Sri T.L.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri N.Hari Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.141 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, for perpetual injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed vide interlocutory application I.A.No.154 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to amend the pleadings of the plaint. In the said application, it is contended that along with the suit, petitioners also filed I.A.No.495 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to grant temporary injunction and the respondent No.2 filed counter stating that the suit schedule property is coparcenery property of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the respondent No.1 and that the same was partitioned among them and that he is claiming rights basing on registered sale deeds. Therefore, in view of challenge made by the respondents with regard to the title of the petitioners, it is necessary to seek declaration, injunction and also for cancellation of sale deeds bearing document Nos.1702 of 2006 dated 25.02.2006 and 2448 of 2006 dated 16.03.2006.

5. The respondents filed counter and contended that the amendments sought for by the petitioners are barred by law and further contended that respondents filed written statement on 25.08.2015 denying the right and title of the petitioners, however, I.A., for amendment was filed in the month of December, 2023 i.e, after eight years after filing of written statement. Therefore, the application is barred by limitation and hence, liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 01.05.2024 dismissed the application with a specific observation that petitioners did not aver or whisper as to what prevented them from filing the application seeking the amendment of the plaint when they have knowledge about the denial of the title and also setting up title over the suit schedule property by the respondent No.2 by virtue of sale deed. The trial Court further observed that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1 , the application filed by the petitioners after expiry of period of limitation despite having knowledge about the denial of title by the respondents in the year 2015, when the written statement was filed, cannot be entertained.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on improper appreciation of the facts and law and further submitted that trial Court also failed to consider the well settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi  Reddy and others 2008 AIR (SC) 2033. Learned counsel further submitted that trial Court wrongly relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Gupta (supra) and Voltas Ltd. V. Rolta India Limited  (2014) 4 SCC 516 and other judgments, which have no application to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that since there is a clear denial of title of the petitioners by the respondents, it is necessary to amend the pleadings and if the application is not allowed, petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury and finally, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application as the same is barred by limita