IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 657 OF 2008 MR. TONY FERNANDES AND 5 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus MRS. NATALIA S. REBELLO AND 9 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Talaulikar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.Thali, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 To 7, 8a To 8c And 9. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 28th January, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. This writ petition is preferred by the defendants/ petitioners against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao whereby he granted an application for amendment of plaint. The plaintiffs have instituted a suit claiming a right of access through the property Survey No.659/54 of Cuncolim as shown in the plan and have also sought injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstructions to the said access. The suit came to be instituted in the month of September 2001. An application for amendment came to be moved by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought to add certain description of the property. The application was opposed by the defendants. In spite of the opposition, the learned Judge, allowed the application. He found that the amendment does not change the nature of the suit and the amendment is only sought to explain the pleadings. 3. The learned Counsel for the defendants/ petitioners, submits that the amendment should not have been allowed because of the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of C.P.C. He also submits that the amendment should not have been allowed because it is barred by limitation and thirdly, he submits that the said amendment changes the nature of the suit itself. As far as the first contention is concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that the suit was instituted even prior to coming into force amendment to Rule 17, Order VI of C.P.C. Therefore, proviso to the said rule, does not apply in the instant case. He relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad Versus Town Municipal Council reported in 2007(1) SCC 765. The decision of the Supreme Court is very clear. It is apparent that the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI, cannot be applied in the instant case. That part of the argument, has, therefore, to be negatived. 4. It was contended that the amendment is barred by limitation. He submits that the suit is instituted in the year 2001 and the amendment application is filed in the year 2008. He submits that every relief for declaration has to be claimed within a period of 3 years from the accrual of cause of action. There is no doubt that the relief has to be claimed from the date of accrual of cause of action. In the instant case, it must be mentioned here that the plaintiffs are not seeking addition of any prayer as such and are not claiming any additional relief. Such a prayer is not sought to be amended. The prayer i.e. relief claimed, is the same. Therefore, the relief that is being claimed, is not being changed by the amendment and there is no question of such amendment being barred by limitation at all. Had the plaintiffs sought for addition of additional relief then, perhaps it could have been said that such relief is barred by limitation. 5. It was next contended that the amendment changes the nature of the suit. The learned Judge of the Trial Court, has found that the amendment does not change the nature of the suit. The plaintiffs have not contended that the houses of the plaintiffs are located in the property belonging to the defendant No.7. What they have contended is that they have access through defendant No.7's plot. There is, as such, no change in the nature of the suit. I do not find that the order suffers from illegality or impropriety and there is no substance in the writ petition. It is dismissed. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA