Judgment :- The petitioner is challenging the Order dated 19.09.2007 made in I.A.No.647 of 2006 in O.S.No.58 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The defendant in O.S.No.58 of 2000 is the revision petitioner before this Court. 3. The suit in O.S.No.58 of 2000 has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that they were in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 75 years. The defendant has no manner of right in respect of the suit schedule property. While so, the defendant took on lease three shops bearing Nos.10, 11 and 12 belonging to the plaintiff Devasthanam. Since they did not pay the rentals properly and regularly, the plaintiff filed these suits in O.S.Nos.290 of 1999, 292 of 1999 and 317 of 1999 and the same are pending. Having that in mind and to create disturbance to the plaintiff Devasthanam, the defendant on 18.02.2000 attempted to trespass into the suit property. The said attempt was successfully thwarted by the Devasthanam and a Police complaint was also given. However, the defendant has been proclaiming that he would trespass into the suit property. The defendant has got money and muscle power and he is likely to trespass into the suit property at any time. Hence, the above suit was filed. 5. A written statement has been filed by the defendant and the suit is being contested. 6. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.647 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the prayer in the suit from that of permanent injunction to that of declaration and for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction put up by the defendant and to recover possession. The said application was resisted by the defendant/revision petitioner herein by filing a counter. The trial court in and by order dated 19. 2007 allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. This Court on 111. 2007 granted an interim stay of further proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.58 of 2000 and the said interim stay was alter on extended. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. This Court on 111. 2007 granted an interim stay of further proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.58 of 2000 and the said interim stay was alter on extended. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the entire documents available on record. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the trial court allowing the application for amendment is wholly contrary to the object and scope of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. According to him, the trial Court failed to consider the statement made by the defendant in the written statement on 10. 2000 that alleged constructions were put up by the defendant more than 35 years ago. Further, the plaintiff has filed the application only after six years and the delay was not at all explained by the plaintiff. The Court below without assigning any reason allowed the same. 10. Further, he submits that the prayer sought for in the application would change the entire case of the plaintiff and it would introduce a new case of action for which amendment cannot be sought for. 11. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decisions reported in 1. A.I.R. 1996 SC 2358 (Radhika Devi Vs. Bajrangi Singh and others) 2. (2004)3 SCC 392 (T.N.Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs T.N. Electricity Board and others) 3. (2007)4 M.L.J. 378 (SC) (Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu Vs Sita Ram Saraugi and Others) 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that after filing of the suit for bare injunction against the defendant from either interfering or disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, the defendant trespassed into the property and has put up the construction which necessitated the plaintiff to file the amendment application. He submits that if the defendant had already put up the construction as alleged by the defendant, nothing would have prevented the plaintiff from filing a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction at that point of time itself. Therefore, he submits that that itself would show that there was no construction put up by anyone much less the defendant in the suit property. Therefore, he submits that that itself would show that there was no construction put up by anyone much less the defendant in the suit property. However, she submits that the amendment sought for is only to subserve the ultimate cause of justice and avoiding further litigation. In support of her contention, she relied on the following decisions: 1. A.I.R. 2001 SC 699 (Ragu Thilak D.John V. S.Rayappan) 2. (2004)6 SCC 415 (Pankaja and another Vs Yellappa (dead) by LRS and Others). 13. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citations. 14. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff initially for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant herein from interfering with these peaceful possession of the suit property. Initially, therein was an attempt by the defendant to encroach upon the suit property and hence, the suit was filed for injunction only. However, according to the plaintiff, pending suit, the defendant had entered into the suit property and constructed the building and his possession of the same. Therefore, the amendment petition was filed to amend the prayer to that of declaration of title of the suit property and to demolish the building constructed by the defendant and to take possession of the suit property through court order. This was resisted by the defendant/revision petitioner by stating that the respondent/plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property as the suit property is a temple poramboke. Because it is a temple poramboke, the respondent/plaintiff cannot claim right and possession against the trespassers. 15. However, the defendant/petitioner was in occupation of the suit property about 35 years ago by constructing a tiled house therein. Therefore, the alleged construction was not put up recently by the defendant/petitioner. Hence, the defendant/petitioner prayed for dismissal of the petition. 16. Now, let me consider the scope of Order VI Rule 17 and the judgments relied on by the parties. 17. A.I.R. 1996 SC 2358 (cited supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "5. We find no force in the contention of the appellant. No doubt, the amendment of the plaint is normally granted and only in exceptional cases where the accrued rights are taken away by amendment of the pleading, the Court would refuse the amendment. 17. A.I.R. 1996 SC 2358 (cited supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "5. We find no force in the contention of the appellant. No doubt, the amendment of the plaint is normally granted and only in exceptional cases where the accrued rights are taken away by amendment of the pleading, the Court would refuse the amendment. This Court in Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala (SCR at p.582) held thus: “It is, no doubt, true that, save in exceptional cases, leave to amend under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code will ordinarily be refused when the effect of the amendment would be to take away from a party a legal right which had accrued to him by lapse of time. But this rule can apply only when either fresh allegations are added or fresh reliefs sought by way of amendment. Where, for instance, an amendment is sought which merely clarifies an existing pleading and does not in substance add to or alter it, it has never been held that the question of a bar of limitation is one of the questions to be considered in allowing such clarification of a matter already contained in the original pleading. The present is a fortiori so. The defendants here were not seeking to add any allegation nor to claim any fresh relief which they had prayed for in the pleading already filed.” 6. In that case this Court considered the cross-objections to be treated as a cross-suit since no alteration was being made in the written statement to treat it as a plaint originally instituted. The amendment which was sought to be made was treated to be clarificatory and, therefore, this Court had upheld the amendment of the written statement and treated it to be a cross-suit. The ratio therein squarely applies to a fact situation where the party acquires right by bar of limitation and if the same is sought to be taken away by amendment of the pleading, amendment in such circumstances would be refused. In the present case, the gift deed was executed and registered as early as 28-7-1978 which is a notice to everyone. Even after filing of the written statement, for 3 years no steps were taken to file the application for amendment of the plaint. In the present case, the gift deed was executed and registered as early as 28-7-1978 which is a notice to everyone. Even after filing of the written statement, for 3 years no steps were taken to file the application for amendment of the plaint. Thereby the accrued right in favour of the respondents would be defeated by permitting amendment of the plaint. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to grant permission to amend the plaint." 18 In (2004)3 SCC 392 (cited supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "2. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of the appellant was erroneous. The law as regards permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. it was held that the Court would as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the court to order it." 19 In A.I.R. 2007(4) M.L.J. 378 (SC) (cited supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed as follows: "12. It is quite true that this Court in a number of decisions, has allowed by way of an amendment even the claims which were barred by time. However, for that there had to be a valid basis made out in the application and first of all there had to be bona fides on the part of the plaintiffs and a reasonable explanation for the delay. It is also true that the amendments can be introduced at any stage of the suit, however, when by that amendment an apparently time-barred claim is being introduced for the first time, there would have to be some explanation and secondly, the plaintiff would have to show his bona fides, particularly because such claims by way of an amendment would have the effect of defeating the rights created in the defendant by the lapse of time. When we see the present facts, it is clear that no such attempt is made by the plaintiffs anywhere more particularly in the amendment application." 20 Citing these three judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment application ought to have been rejected as the amended claim would be barred by limitation. 21 In A.I.R. 2001 SC 699 (cited supra), the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "5. After referring to the judgments in Charan Das v. Amir Khan, L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram and various Other authorities, this Court in B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai held: (SCC p.715, para 3) “3. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of litigation.” 6. If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plaint which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for." .22. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for." .22. In (2004)6 SCC 415 (cited supra), the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: ."14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straitjacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual background of that case." 23. Citing the above two judgments, the learned cousel for the respondents submits that even assuming without admitting that the new claim is barred by limitation still the amendment can be allowed on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. .24. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been in possession of the suit schedule property even at the time of filing of the suit and the construction has been put up by him for more than 35 years ago. He relies on the written statement filed by him in this regard. But, according to the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant trespassed into the suit when the suit is pending and therefore, they sought for amendments. In fact, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.647 of 2006, it was specifically stated that the petitioner entered into the suit schedule property and put up the construction when the suit is pending for bare injunction. 25. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, an issue needs to be framed with regard to when the petitioner/defendant entered into the premises and put up the construction. Only when that issue is settled, the question of limitation barring the suit may come into picture and therefore, the amendment could not be rejected at this stage. 26. 25. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, an issue needs to be framed with regard to when the petitioner/defendant entered into the premises and put up the construction. Only when that issue is settled, the question of limitation barring the suit may come into picture and therefore, the amendment could not be rejected at this stage. 26. In fact, 2004(6) SCC 415 (cited supra), the Honble Supreme Court has observed that there is no absolute rule in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed and the discretion in such cases depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 27. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the amendment as sought for by the respondent/plaintiff was rightly allowed by the trial court and I do not find any infirmity in the order. 28. In the result, the above Civil Revision petition fails and the order passed by the trial court is upheld. No costs. 29. Since the suit is of the year 2000, I direct the trial court to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.