THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1501 OF 2010 23-07-2010 Between: V.Venkayamma wife of Late Vijaya Mohan ..Petitioner Vs. S.Prasantha Kumari wife of Prasad …Respondent. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1501 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER This plaintiff’s revision is directed against the order dated 09-12- 2009 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole rejecting I.A.No.899 of 2009. The revision petitioner initially filed the suit for permanent injunction claiming to have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of an extent of Ac.0.02 cents; to have constructed a house therein and seeking injunctive relief against the defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It would appear that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to visit the suit schedule property, to note down the physical features and record findings as to who was in possession. The Commissioner’s report was apparently against the claim of the revision petitioner/plaintiff. Hence she filed I.A.No.406 of 2009 to amend the plaint and seek the additional relief of recovery of possession, in a suit filed for permanent injunction. That petition was dismissed on merits on 30-03-2009. The revision petitioner then filed the present application (I.A.No.899 of 2009) to amend the pleadings in the plaint for seeking declaration of title and recovery of the suit schedule property. In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.899 of 2009, the petitioner pleaded that on 09-07-2005 and 22-07-2005 the defendant and her supporters had forcibly entered into the suit schedule property, demolished a portion of the house therein and on 22-07-2005 the defendant trespassed into the property, dragged the petitioner out and raised a new construction. The affidavit disclosed that the petitioner was aware of the alleged acts of the defendant on 09-07-2005 and 22-07-2005 as she pleaded in the affidavit that she had photographs taken of the incident and had lodged a police complaint. Nevertheless she filed the application for amendment of the pleadings and the relief, only in 2009. The Court below relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd., and another Vs. M/s Jardine Skinner & Company [AIR 1957 SC 357] and T.N. Ally Foundry Company Limited Vs. T.N. Electricity Board and Others [(2004) 3 SCC 392 ] held that the court would decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit would be barred by limitation on the date of the application (for amendment) and rejected the application on the ground that the amendments sought are beyond the period of limitation. This court discerns no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the court below, warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 23rd JULY 2010 TSNR