ORDER

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 05.12.2017, made in I.A.No.134 of 2017, in O.S.No.166 of

2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the respondents 1 to 3 / defendants 1 to 3. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the petitioners / plaintiffs, and the respondents 6 & 7 herein are the respondents 4 & 5 / defendants 4& 5 before the Court below.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to according to their litigative status before the Court below.

4. It appears that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to alienate or encumber the suit property. The said suit was filed on 13.09.2012. Resisting the above said suit, the defendants have filed a written statement on 22.02.2013. In the written statement, the defendants have unequivocally disputed the title of the plaintiffs. In the pleadings, in no uncertain terms stated that the suit property was sold to the defendants by virtue of document, dated 20.12.1991 for Rs.74,000/-.

5. However, it appears that after the period of three years from the date of filing of the written statement, the plaintiffs have moved an application for amendment in I.A.No.134 of 2017. Wherein, the plaintiffs introduced new pleadings in the body of the plaint and also sought for the prayer of declaration, to declare that the unregistered document, dated 20.12.1991, is a result of forgery and will not bind the plaintiffs. Apart from that the prayer, he also wanted consequential prayer in respect of the valuation of the suit. The said application was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the very amendment sought for is hit by the principles of limitation.

6. However, the Court below has allowed the application with the finding that, the disputed sale deed is an unregistered sale deed, therefore, to have an effective disposal, the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs needs to be allowed.

7. Aggrieved with the said order, the defendants 1 to 3 have approached this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

8. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 3 would submit that the very order passed by the Court below is squarely hit by the principles of limitation, and would further submit that since the very prayer is allowed the nature and character of the suit will be changed, therefore, he would submit that the very amendment application is liable to be dismissed, by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that they are not changing the character and nature of the suit and would further submit that the very disputed sale deed is the unregistered sale deed and has recently impounded by the Court, therefore, would submit that the very application is liable to be dismissed and prayed to confirm the order of the Court below. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the either side submissions.

11. It is an admitted fact that the suit was filed on 13.09.2012.

Similarly the written statement was filed on 22.02.2013. In which, a specific pleading has been raised in respect of the sale deed, dated 20.12.1991. Therefore, it is amply clear that the plaintiffs was put on notice about existence of sale deed, dated 20.12.1991 through the written statement. However, the realisation of the plaintiffs to file amendment application in respect of sale deed came little latter. In the meanwhile, three years period have lapsed. After that the amendment application came to be filed on 31.01.2017.

12. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that though the application has been filed belatedly, the intervening circumstances such as direction to pay the stamp duty penalty must be a reparative measure to the plaintiff, and that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would further submit that, the same would save the limitation to file the application for amendment. In sub