HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2186 OF 2011 DATE:24-06-2011 BETWEEN Pagadala Venkamma and others …Petitioners AND Kommuru Pullaiah and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2186 OF 2011 ORDER: Plaintiffs are in revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the orders of III Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 29.4.2011 in allowing I.A.No.81 of 2011 in O.S.No.986 of 2007 filed by defendants for amendment of the written statement in the suit filed for declaration and for permanent injunction. In the written statement, the defendants-respondents herein specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property is ancestral property and that their father was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death and after his death, it was partitioned among the heirs and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and that their possession is peaceful and uninterrupted. Later, the respondents-defendants filed the impugned I.A. seeking amendment of the written statement to add the plea of adverse possession and also the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. According to the petitioners-plaintiffs, the defendants- respondents herein earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.2182 of 2006 for permanent injunction, in which, they filed an I.A. for temporary injunction which was dismissed and to prove the same, the petitioners got marked Exs.R.1 to R.4. Ex.R.3 and R.4 are the petition filed by the defendants and counter filed by the plaintiffs; while Exs.R.1 and R.2 are the plaint and affidavit filed in O.S.No.2182 of 2006. According to them, in the said I.A., the defendants-respondents have not taken any such pleas which are now sought to be taken by way of amendment to the written statement and therefore, the defendants need not be permitted to amend the written statement. By the impugned order, the lower Court allowed the I.A. holding that sufficient plea has already been taken in the written statement with regard to the adverse possession except adding the term ‘adverse possession’. It is well settled that the plea that the suit is barred by limitation is a legal plea and even in the absence of the plea with regard to the limitation, the Court can always go into the same and decide the issue. Therefore, no infirmity is discernable with the impugned order passed by the lower Court warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 24, 2011 Tsr.