HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5945 of 2008 DATED: 16.11.2009 Between: D.Narasimha Reddy .. Petitioner and P.Anji Reddy .. Respondent O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2008 passed in I.A. No.370 of 2008 in O.S. No.1459 of 2003 by the learned VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint, was allowed. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1459 of 2003 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land in an extent of Acs. 1.31 guntas in Sy. No. 540, situated at Maidammaguda, H/o. G. Pochampally. The defendant filed his written statement. Before the trial commenced, the plaintiff filed the present application praying to permit him to amend the plaint seeking declaration of his title to the schedule property. The defendant contested the application. The learned Judge, having considered the rival contentions and considering the fact that the application for amendment of plaint was filed at the pre-trial stage and such applications should be liberally considered, allowed the same by the order under revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the amendment application for amendment of the plaint is filed five years after filing the written statement, the same being barred by limitation, the Court below ought to have rejected the same. He further contended that since the respondent filed the present application without mentioning the proposed amendment with regard to declaration, payment of court fee and prayer, the Court below ought not to have allowed the same. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. He submitted that since the respondent is the owner of the property and as the petitioner is denying his title thereto, he filed the present application praying to permit him to amend the plaint, and the Court below has rightly allowed the same, and no interference is called for therewith. He thus prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and perused the order under revision. Whether the amendment sought in the plaint by the respondent is barred by limitation or not, is a mixed question of fact and law, which has to be decided at the time of trial and not in an application for amendment of plaint. Admittedly, the suit was filed by the respondent praying for injunction, and as the petitioner denied the title of the respondent to the suit schedule property, he sought amendment of the plaint to declare his title thereto. The Court below with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation, allowed the application filed by the respondent for amendment of the plaint, and no exception can be taken thereto, and more so, when the law is well settled that amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed, unless it is shown that serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. However, it is left open to the petitioner to file a written statement to the amended plaint. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 16th November, 2009 bcj