IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.593 of 2006 NAGESHWAR SAH & ANR Versus SHEODENI SINGH & ORS ----------- 3. 15.10.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this court the impugned order rejecting amendment in the plaint cannot be faulted especially when the court below has noted that the relief which is now being sought to be extended by way of amendment in the plaint would change nature of the suit, inasmuch as the validity of the two sale deeds dated 28.11.1979 and 25.11.1982 will have to be gone into even for the relief now being sought by the plaintiff petitioner by way of recovery of possession. The court below accordingly proceeded by also taking into account that the knowledge about these two sale deeds had already been acquired by the plaintiff petitioner on 21.4.2001, when the written statement was filed by the defendant opposite party disclosing the fact with regard to the aforementioned two sale deeds. This Court, accordingly, would find no error in that part of the impugned order where the court below has gone to hold that 2 even from the date of knowledge of these two sale deeds being on 21.4.2001 when the amendment petition came to be filed on 6.1.2005, the same being beyond the period of three years was barred by limitation. Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the amendment ought to have not been refused because the case of the petitioner in the amendment petition was that those two sale deeds were sham and farzi and therefore, the period of limitation of three years would not have been made operative. Unfortunately such plea of the sale deeds being sham and farzi of the petitioner was taken by him at a point of time when the defendants disclosed about their own defence and took the plea of their being in possession of the land by virtue of those two sale deeds way back on 21.4.2001 and as such the period of limitation even from that date had expired on 20.4.2004, if not earlier in view of the sale deed being dated 28.11.1979 and 25.11.1982. That being so, if the petitioner also want recovery of possession of the suit property, which was not originally prayed 3 for by him, the suit will have to be first adjudicated by framing separate issues in the light of the aforesaid two sale deeds, which infact would change the very nature of the suit. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court the court below has rightly refused such amendment in the plaint. This Court would, therefore, concur with the findings of facts and the reasons recorded in the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/