THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3040 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.06.2011 in I.A. No.123 of 2011 in O.S. No.189 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddygudem, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for amendment of plaint pleadings, was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the relief sought for by way of the proposed amendment is arguable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and allowing the amendment petition would not cause any prejudice to the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, they can as well file additional written statement; that, Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to the facts of the present case, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and allow the proposed amendment. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in the year 1997 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur which was numbered as Original Suit No.353 of 1997. Thereafter, on constitution of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Jangareddygudem, it was transferred to the said court and renumbered as Original Suit No.188 of 2009. Now, the present amendment petition is filed seeking the relief of declaration of title in respect of plaint schedule property. On the ground that the amendment is not sought for within the period prescribed under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petition was dismissed. 4. Amendment to Order VI Rule 17 CPC in the year 2002 has no application to the present facts of the case, but the plaintiff must state for what reasons he could not be in a position to file the application for amendment when the suit has been pending for the last 14 years. No such steps have been taken by the petitioner/plaintiff till 2011. Admittedly, the respondents/defendants filed their written statement in the year 1997 denying the title of the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, when the respondents/defendants denied title of the petitioner/plaintiff in the year 1997 itself, the latter ought to have taken steps to amend the plaint seeking relief of declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property. Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to obtain any declaration, the period of limitation is ‘three years’ and the period begins to run ‘when the right to sue first accrues’. The right to sue in this case accrued when the respondents/defendant denied the title of the petitioner/plaintiff in the year 1997. So, the for the last 14 years, the petitioner/plaintiff kept quiet and has not evinced any interest to amend the pleadings so as to seek declaration of title. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 05.08.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3040 OF 2011 05.08.2011