SUMITHRA BHAI Vs. K.VENKOPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order of the appellate court rejecting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment seeking relief of declaration, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) The suit has been filed originally by the revision petitioner for eviction claiming that the defendant/respondent is the tenant in the shop premises. Written statement was filed by the tenant on 10/4/2015 denying the title. Thereafter, it appears that the suit was dismissed on 14/10/2020. While dismissing the suit, the Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff is claiming title on the basis of the gift deed said to have been executed by one Vittal Rao had ommitted to seek relief of declaration. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment before the appellate court only for adding the relief of declaration. It was opposed by the respondent on the ground that as far as the title of the petitioner is concerned, the same was disputed in the year 2015 itself and the declaration ought to have been sought within a period of three years, whereas, the application has been filed only in the year 2022, that too, pending appeal. The appellate court vide impugned order dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment sought in the appeal stage will not change the character of the suit itself. The suit itself is filed for recovery of possession based on the gift deed executed in favour of the revision petitioner, therefore, the question of applying limitation for the relief of declaration does not arise at all, since, the main relief itself is for recovery of possession which is governed under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit is not for mere declaration simplicitor, the larger relief of recovery of possession; in such case, only Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the declaration relief ought to have been sought within a period of three years does not hold any water. Hence, seeks for allowing the revision petition.