HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6190 of 2009 Dated : 26.02.2010 Between : Smt.D.Kalpana & others ….. Petitioners a n d D.nagabhushanam @ Vanjari Nagabhushanam & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6190 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Medak, in I.A.No.289 of 2009 in O.S.No.4 of 2006 dated 15.10.2009 by which the request for amendment of the plaint by the second plaintiff was allowed. The Trial Court observed while allowing the amendment that it neither changes the nature of the suit nor causes any prejudice to the defendant as the defence of the defendant was only one of forgery concerning the suit document dated 26.02.2001. The defendants challenge the said order herein contending that the claim based on the gift settlement deed dated 26.02.2001 is barred by limitation insofar as the second plaintiff is concerned, who subsequently got impleaded and by virtue of the proposed amendment, accrued rights of the defendants were adversely effected. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are estopped from making any claim over the suit property in view of settlement and compromise between the same parties in O.S.No.41 of 2004 and hence the revision petitioners desired the impugned order to be reversed. Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the respondents, are heard. The point for consideration is whether permitting the amendment of the plaint at the instance of the second plaintiff is not reasonable and sustainable? It is seen from the material on record that the suit was originally filed by the first plaintiff alone against his daughter-in-law and grand children claiming that his deceased son executed the gift settlement deed dated 26.02.2001 in his favour. It is only in consequence thereof that the relief of declaration of title of the first plaintiff was sought for originally in the suit and the proceedings in O.S.No.41 of 2004 filed earlier by the daughter-in-law for partition were claimed to have not effected the right of the first plaintiff over the suit property. Subsequently, the second plaintiff came up with I.A.No.161 of 2009 before the trial Court claiming that the deceased son of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had in fact executed the gift settlement deed dated 26.02.2001 in her favour and therefore, on becoming the absolute owner of the property on the death of her son, she becomes a necessary and proper party to the suit. The request for her impleadment was opposed by the defendants claiming that when they pleaded that the suit itself is not maintainable, as no such gift settlement deed as relied on by the plaintiff is existing, the impleadment of the second plaintiff does not arise. The trial Court by its order dated 17.07.2009 in I.A.No.161 of 2009 considered that the impleadment of the second plaintiff in the suit does not cause any prejudice to the defendants as in any view the defence of the defendants is one of forgery concerning the said gift settlement deed. The trial Court felt that it does not matter whether it was in favour of the first plaintiff or the second plaintiff insofar as the defence is concerned and while compensating the defendants of the inconvenience caused due to the protraction of the matter by coming up with a request for amendment at a belated stage by imposing costs of Rs.500/-, the trial Court permitted impleadment of the second plaintiff. It was in pursuance of such impleadment that both the plaintiffs came up with I.A.No.289 of 2009 for amendment of the plaint and it is obvious from the affidavit filed in support of the application that the amendment became necessary in consequence of impleadment of the second plaintiff and it was sought to be pleaded that the gift settlement deed was in favour of the second plaintiff and that the second plaintiff will be the owner and possessor and title holder of the suit property. The request was opposed by the defendants for the same reasons, but obviously in view of the order in I.A.No.161 of 2009, this petition was also allowed by the trial Court to meet the interests of justice. When the second plaintiff was permitted to be impleaded by virtue of the order in I.A. No.161 of 2009 and that order can be deemed to have become final in the absence of any challenge, the consequential changes in the plaint sought to be made by the plaintiffs cannot be opposed by the defendants. Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, referred to Dr.Dilip Kumar Renapurkar v. Vivek Pandav and others[1] to contend that the second plaintiff has no right to have the plaint amended. But the facts of that case are that it was the defendants, who have been transposed as plaintiffs, that sought for the amendment of the plaint without the consent of the original plaintiff to the suit and allowing such a request of the transposed plaintiffs was reversed by this Court. In the present case, both the original plaintiff and the impleaded plaintiff together requested for amendment of the plaint, thus, leaving only the question about the permissibility of allowing such amendment to be made. Any right of the defendants to plead the question of limitation as against the second plaintiff is no way vitiated by allowing the amendment as while impleading the second plaintiff as per the orders in I.A.No.161 of 2009, the trial Court did not make any order making such impleadment to have effect from any earlier date. Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, makes it clear in sub-section (1) that any plaintiff newly added after institution of the suit shall be deemed to have instituted the suit only when he was made a party unless the Court directs that the suit as regards such newly impleaded plaintiff shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date. Therefore, the second plaintiff has to be deemed to have instituted the suit only on 17.07.2009, the date on which she was ordered to be impleaded in I.A.No.161 of 2009, and if the defendants have a right to plead any bar of limitation with reference to such date, such a right no way was prejudiced by the impugned order. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not seem to be liable for any interference. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs while making it clear that any right of the defendants to plead the bar of limitation for the suit with reference to date of impleadment of the second plaintiff in the suit is perfectly available for them to be pleaded in the suit and to be determined on merits in accordance with law by the trial Court. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 26th February, 2010 SUR [1] 2005 (5) ALT 581