ORDER:

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 18.10.2022, allowing I.A.No.712 of 2022 in O.S.No.208 of 2017 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint by changing the relief of perpetual injunction as the relief of declaration of right and title of the petitioner in the suit schedule property and consequential relief of perpetual injunction and also for cancellation of the registered sale deed, dated

09.03.2015, vide document bearing No.1000 of 2015.

2. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st defendant. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction, however, in view of the defence raised in the written statement denying title of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property, the plaintiff sought to amend the prayer as noted above. The petitioner contended that the sale deed, dated 09.03.2015, in favour of the defendant, was executed by her for the purpose of security only for the debt of Rs.2,00,000/-, and as such, the defendant No.1 has no right over the property and consequently, it is necessary to amend the plaint.

4. The petition was resisted by filing counter of the 1st respondent. 2nd and 3rd respondents/defendants remained ex parte. The 1st respondent opposed the petition stating that the written statement of the 1st respondent was filed in August 2017 denying right and title of the plaint schedule property, and therefore, if at all the plaintiff intended to amend the plaint seeking declaration of title, she ought to have filed petition within three years from the date of filing of the written statement whereas the present petition is filed beyond the period of limitation, and therefore, the relief is barred by limitation. It is also contended that the relief of cancellation of sale deed must be taken within three years from the date of execution of the document and therefore, the relief of cancellation of sale deed cannot be taken now after the relief is barred by limitation.

5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition observing that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (died) by LRs and others1 that a suit simplicitor for perpetual injunction without

1 2008(4) SCC 594

claiming declaration of title is not maintainable if plaintiff’s title is disputed even in the written statement.

6. Insofar as the limitation is concerned, the trial Court observed that as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, suit for declaration shall be filed within three years from the date when right to sue first accrues and Article 59 of the Limitation Act provides that suit for cancelation of a document shall be filed within three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled first becomes known to him. Since the written statement of the 1st respondent was filed on 24.8.2017, the plaintiff ought to have filed amendment petition on or before 24.08.2020. However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Suo-moto Writ Petition (civil) No.3 of 2020, dated 10.01.2022, the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded and thereby, the present petition is not barred by limitation.

7. Having been aggrieved by the order, the revision petition is filed contending that the trial Court has misread the decisions of the Supreme Court both in respect of extension of limitation period as well as amendment permissible for altering the relief from perpetual injunction to declaration etc.

8. Learned counsel for both sides reiterated their submissions as per the contentions raised.

9. Both in respect of question of limitation and the right to ask amendment of the prayer in the plaint to include declaration of title and also cancelation of sale deed are rightly appreciated by the trial Court