Telangana High Court
K.V.L.Jayasimha vs B .Padmaja on 4 February, 2021
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CRP.No.129 of 2021
O R D E R:
This Revision is filed challenging the order
dt.29.12.2020 in IA.No.579 of 2018 in OS.No.876 of
2019(Old OS.No.246 of 2013) of the II Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The said application had been filed by the petitioner in
November, 2018 seeking amendment to the plaint by
adding relief of declaration of his title to the suit schedule
property.
3. It is not in dispute that in the written statement filed
by the respondents in the suit on 18.02.2013 itself, the title
of the petitioner to the suit schedule property was denied
and it was contended that the property belong to the 2nd
defendant/2nd respondent.
4. The Court below had rejected, by the impugned order
passed on 29.12.2020, petitioner's application for
amendment of the plaint on the ground that he had filed
the application after the trial had commenced on
16.03.2018 and also on the ground that the limitation
prescribed in Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would
apply and the time for seeking declaration would
commence from the date when the written statement was
filed by the defendants denying the plaintiff's title. It also
relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
L.C.Hanumanthappa (Since Dead) represented by his L.Rs v.
H.B.Shivakumar1.
5. Though counsel for petitioner sought to place reliance on
the observations made in the order dt.17.11.2016 in
CRP.No.3794 of 2013 filed by the petitioner in this Court, about
the necessity of the trial Court to go into the question as to
whether the relief of declaration of title should have been sought
for by the petitioner in the suit, admittedly, the application
IA.No.579 of 2018 was filed almost 2 years after the said CRP
was decided on 17.11.2016, and no explanation is forthcoming
in IA.No.579 of 2018, why the petitioner could not have sought
for amendment immediately after the said order was passed by
this Court.
6. I am also of the opinion that the Court below had correctly
applied the judgment in L.C.Hanumanthappa's case(1 supra)
and the principle laid down therein that in a suit for injunction,
if a relief of declaration of title is sought by way of amendment,
limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would
apply, and the three year period for seeking the said relief would
commence from the date when the original written statement
2016(1) SCC 332
was filed denying the title, is attracted and the application for
amendment is barred by limitation.
7. In this view of the matter, I do not fine any merits in this
Revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
04th February, 2021.
gra
