P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE CMP No. 24139 of 2003 is filed to vacate the interim stay granted on 8-9-2003 in CMP No. 17800 of 2003 in CRP No. 3822 of 2003. At this stage, this Court heard both the Counsel at length and the main CRP is taken up for final hearing and disposal. Sri Bankatlal mandhani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the proposed amendment is barred by limitation, inasmuch as the relief relating to prayer portion alone is to be amended, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the same is permissible in law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559 . ( 2 ) PER contra Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent had submitted that the registered partition deed is dated 25-8-1957, the suit was instituted as os. No. 1997, which was renumbered as OS no. 4/2003 at present on the file of II additional District Judge, Kadapa at proddatur. In that view of the matter, the relief of cancellation should have been prayed for within three years by virtue of article 59 of the Limitation Act 1963. The learned Counsel also submitted that, even otherwise the discretion had been exercised properly by the learned n Additional District judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. Since the learned Judge had recorded the reasons in detail, the Counsel also had explained that this is not a case where any further letting in of evidence is essential for the purpose of deciding this question. In that view of the matter the proposed amendment is impermissible in law and hence dismissal of the application by the learned Judge is well justified. ( 3 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the reasons recorded by the learned n Additional District Judge, Kadapa at proddatur in IA No. 378 of 2003 in OS no. 4 of 2003, dated 16-6-2003. The learned judge infact had taken all the facts into consideration and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the proposed amendment cannot be allowed since clearly it is barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that the suit was instituted in the year 1997 and no doubt subsequent there to it was transferred and renumbered at present as OS No. 4/2003 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. It is not in dispute that the suit was instituted in the year 1997 and no doubt subsequent there to it was transferred and renumbered at present as OS No. 4/2003 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. It is also not in controversy that the registered partition deed was executed on 25-8-1957 and the plaintiff had instituted the present suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties. In such circumstances, the present proposed amendment was though of. In Sampath kumar (supra), the Apex Court no doubt held that the pre-trial amendments, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, may have to be allowed. The Apex Court also had observed that where only nature of relief sought to be changed while basic structure of the suit remaining unchanged. Courts below taking the view that it was open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit seeking the relief sought, such course not to be adopted and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, such amendment to be allowed. ( 4 ) IN the present case, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a party to the partition deed dated 25-8-1957 and the suit praying for the relief of cancellation should be instituted within three years, as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act. 1963 which reads as under: description of suits period of limitation time from which period begins to run 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the recision of a contract. Three years when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled to set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him. It is needless to say that even by the date of institution of the suit in the year 1997 the relief is clearly barred by limitation. Further, even after institution of the suit in the year 1997 after a long lapse of time, the present proposed amendment had been prayed for. It is not doubt true that whenever the bar of limitation or question of limitation is raised as a ground for negativing the relief praying for amendment necessarily, the same need not be refused but the same depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not doubt true that whenever the bar of limitation or question of limitation is raised as a ground for negativing the relief praying for amendment necessarily, the same need not be refused but the same depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also no doubt true that question of limitation necessarily always need not be a pure question of law, it may be a mixed question of fact and law as well. But, however, whenever it is clear on the admitted facts in the respective pleadings of the parties that no further evidence need be let in for the purpose of deciding the question of limitation, there is no point in allowing such amendment which is clearly barred by limitation, as it will be a futile exercise. Hence, I am of the considered opinion, such amendments need not be allowed. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter the learned Judge is well justified in refusing to allow the application praying for amendments. I do not see any illegality committed by the learned Judge in making the impugned order. The CRP is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. No costs.