1. Plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction; subsequently sought amendments to the plaint for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deeds after several years passed. (Para 1 , 4 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2258
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Nagulavancha Linga Rao and another – Appellant
Versus
Nagulavancha Laxmi and another – Respondent
CRP No.1946 of 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2025
Important Points
An application for amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed if the proposed amendment is barred by limitation or seeks to take away a right acquired by a party through the bar of limitation, especially where there is significant delay and laches.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 58 and 59 - Amendment of pleadings - Limitation for declaration of title and cancellation of instruments - An amendment to pleadings cannot be allowed if it seeks to introduce a claim that is barred by limitation or takes away a right acquired by a party due to the bar of limitation (Para 12).
(B) Delay and laches are relevant factors when considering an application for the amendment of pleadings, especially when a party has prior knowledge of the facts necessitating the amendment (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title in their written statement. After approximately eight years, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to incorporate prayers for declaration of title and cancellation of registered sale deeds. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds of limitation, noting that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the denial of title since the filing of the written statement.
Findings of Court:
The limitation for seeking a declaration of title is three years from the date the right first accrues under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, and for the cancellation of an instrument, it is three years from the date of knowledge under Article 59. As the application was filed eight years after the defendants categorically denied the title, the amendments sought were clearly barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether an application for amendment of pleadings to include prayers for declaration and cancellation of documents can be entertained when filed well beyond the prescribed limitation period and after the party had knowledge of the adverse claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Amendments that are clearly barred by limitation or that seek to deprive a party of a right acquired through the bar of limitation must be refused. The court held that delay and laches on the part of the party seeking amendment are critical factors in disallowing such applications.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
(B) Delay and laches are relevant factors when considering an application for the amendment of pleadings, especially when a party has prior knowledge of the facts necessitating the amendment (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title in their written statement. After approximately eight years, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to incorporate prayers for declaration of title and cancellation of registered sale deeds. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds of limitation, noting that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the denial of title since the filing of the written statement.
Findings of Court:
The limitation for seeking a declaration of title is three years from the date the right first accrues under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, and for the cancellation of an instrument, it is three years from the date of knowledge under Article 59. As the application was filed eight years after the defendants categorically denied the title, the amendments sought were clearly barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether an application for amendment of pleadings to include prayers for declaration and cancellation of documents can be entertained when filed well beyond the prescribed limitation period and after the party had knowledge of the adverse claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Amendments that are clearly barred by limitation or that seek to deprive a party of a right acquired through the bar of limitation must be refused. The court held that delay and laches on the part of the party seeking amendment are critical factors in disallowing such applications.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.L. Krishna Prasad
For the Respondent: N. Hari Prasad
For the Appellant : T.L. Krishna Prasad
For the Respondent: N. Hari Prasad
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs argued amendment was necessary due to title disputes; defendants contended the amendment was barred by limitation as it was filed years after filing the written statement. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
3. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to justify the eight-year delay and held the proposed amendments were barred under the Limitation Act. (Para 6 , 10 , 13 )
4. An application for amendment of pleadings that seeks to introduce claims barred by the law of limitation and suffers from unexplained delay and laches shall be refused. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the amendment application. (Para 14 )
6. Can an application for amendment of pleadings be allowed if the relief sought is already barred by limitation?
No, an amendment will not be allowed if the party seeks by way of amendment to introduce a claim that is already barred by the law of limitation, thereby depriving the opposite party of a vested right. (Para 10 , 12 )
7. What is the impact of significant delay and laches in filing an application for amendment of pleadings?
Significant delay and laches on the part of the applicant are valid grounds for refusing an amendment of the plaint, especially where the party fails to explain what prevented the timely filing of the application. (Para 6 , 11 , 13 )
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
