JUDGMENT

The petitioners impugn Ext.P5 order of the learned Munsiff, Cherthala, whereby, certain amendments sought for by the plaintiff - the first respondent herein, has been allowed.

2. Sri.K.B.Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that, though in Ext.P2 judgment, a learned Judge of this Court left open the liberty of the plaintiff to seek an amendment, it was specifically clarified that the question of limitation qua the cause of action sought to be so introduced, will depend upon the application of the Doctrine of Relation Back and that it is for the Trial Court to consider it, as and when it is so raised. He submitted that, without doing so, the learned Munsiff has allowed the application for amendment, seemingly under the impression that it was ordered to be so done, by this Court in the said judgment. He thus prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that, when this Court specifically granted an opportunity to his client to amend the plaint, incorporating the relief of recovery of possession, Ext.P5 could not have been challenged by the petitioners because, they were also parties to