THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

J U D G M E N T

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2025 in IA.No.331 of 2024 in OS.No.11 of 2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet.

2. The contentions of the petitioners in IA.No.331 of 2024 are that they filed suit for declaration to declare the suit document Nos.648/2012 and 800/2012 are not binding on them for claiming any right or possession and for restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering in their possession. Due to the interference of the respondents/defendants, their title over the respective plots came under the cloud, so they needed to seek a declaration of title over the suit plots and consequentially to amend the plaint by adding Paragraph Nos.9(a), 11(a) and also by adding prayer No.i(a) i.e., to declare the plaintiffs are the owners of respective suit schedule plots.

3. Respondents filed their counter and contended that the case is posted for cross-examination of DW.4, instead of proceeding further they filed the present application to amend the plaint seeking declaratory relief. Written statement is filed in the year 2013 wherein the respondents denied the title of the petitioners over the suit plots.

Application is filed after 11 years to amend the plaint and which is barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act i.e., within 3 years from the date of denial of the title. The amendment application filed by the petitioners will change the nature of the original pleadings and prayed for dismissal.

4. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel on record has dismissed the application without costs.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it and failed to see that the petitioners are illiterates and could not understand the legal intricacies involved in the issue. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the suit for declaration of certain documents, if any amendment is prayed for seeking declaration of title that does not change the nature of the suit and the amendment seeking declaration of title will not prejudice the rights of respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court failed to consider that the procedural laws are hand maid of justice to sub-serve the substantial justice. The limitation for declaration is 12 years but not 3 years and placed reliance on Pankaja and Another vs. Yellappa (Dead) by LR.s And Others, (2004) 6 SCC 415, (2) Oruganti Ramulu and another Vs. G.Shankaraiah and another, 2023 (1) ALT 420 (TS), prayed to set aside the order.

6.1. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners for amendment of pleadings as the same is filed during the cross- examination of DW.4, no interference is called for and placed reliance on Mallava and another Vs. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (since dead) by Legal Heirs³, prayed to dismiss the CRP.

6.2. Notice to respondent No.5 is served on 14.02.2025 and failed to represent the case.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, the only question falls for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from any illegality or irregularity?

8. Petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the suit sought for a declaration to declare the suit document Nos.648/2012 and 800/2012 are not binding on them for claiming any rights or possession and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. The suit schedule property consists of 18 Plots. It is to be noted here that the petitioners have filed suit against respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 and subsequently defendant No.5 is added as party to the proceedings.

3 AIR Online 2024 SC 883 = 2024 SCC Online SC 3846

9. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the defendants in the suit, they filed their written statement on 08.07.2013 wherein they s