IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2822 OF 2009 Between: K. Padmavathi .....PETITIONER AND K. Savithramma ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2822 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 08.06.2009, in I.A.No.1736 of 2008 in O.S.No.1984 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) to amend the plaint with regard to the relief of declaration and delivery of possession and also for mandatory injunction, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for perpetual injunction and thereafter, the respondent/defendant filed written statement denying the title of the petitioner; that therefore, the petitioner filed an amendment petition seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession; that the said petition was dismissed solely on the ground that the relief sought for is barred by limitation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. None appears for the respondent. 4. Under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at any stage, but before the trial of the suit has been commenced. The object of the Rule is that the Courts should try the merits of the cases that come before them and should consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to other side. 5. The suit was filed for grant of perpetual injunction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial of the suit has not been commenced and if the amendment is allowed, the real dispute between the parties will be resolved once for all and that the limitation for recovery of possession is twelve years, as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Even otherwise, a suit for declaration of title can be filed within three years from the date of denial of the right of the plaintiff. The respondent filed the written statement denying the title of the petitioner, which necessitated the petitioner to seek for amendment of the pleadings praying to grant declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, filing of a separate suit in the circumstances of the case is not necessary. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment can be allowed. The limitation aspect can be decided during trial. Hence, it is left open to be decided by the trial Court. By allowing the amendment petition, no injustice would be caused to the respondent/defendant. As the respondent is denying the title of the petitioner/plaintiff, the real controversy between the parties in the suit can be set at rest by allowing the amendment petition. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 08.06.2009, in I.A.No.1736 of 2008 in O.S.No.1984 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Consequently, the amendment petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner/plaintiff has to value the relief of mandatory injunction as well as recovery of possession, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court and thereafter, the necessary Court fee has to be paid. It is needless to observe that the respondent is entitled to file additional written statement. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 29, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2822 OF 2009 January 29, 2011