Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner is Plaintiff in O.S. No.718 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif of Gudiyatham. It is Suit for declaration and permanent injunction. When the Suit was in part-heard stage, she filed an Application under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C. for amending the prayer with reference to a Sale Deed dated 17.5.1985 as null and void. 2. In the Affidavit, she has alleged that from the evidence of D.W.I and D.W.2, she came to know that the Defendant by exercising fraud seemed to have obtained the signature of the Plaintiff in the alleged Sale Deed dated 17.5.1985. it is a voidable document and the request is not barred by limitation. 3. The Petition was resisted by the Respondent/Defendant in full force. It is stated in the counter that the reason given by the Petitioner in the Affidavit is not at all convincing and acceptable and the claim is now barred by limitation. Hence, the Petition has to be dismissed. 4. The learned District Munsif has dismissed the Application by observing that if the Petition is allowed, the entire case will be changed and the evidence given by the parties will be contra to the new case. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent would draw attention of this Court to a pleading in the Written Statement to the effect that the Defendant is the real owner of the suit property from the date he purchased property from the Plaintiff for a valid consideration on 17.5.1985 and registered the Sale Deed after paying the full consideration amount on the same day before the Sub-Registrar, Gudiyatham. He has also alleged therein that the Gudiyatham Municipality has transferred his name in the register and Tax assessment has also been made in his name. The Suit was filed in the year 1998 and the Written Statement was filed in the year 1999. This fact has already been mentioned in the Written Statement and it was brought to the knowledge of the Plaintiff long before. Hence, it is not acceptable that she had the knowledge of alleged fraud only after the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 have been recorded. 6. Further, the relief claimed by the Petitioner is barred by limitation. The relief of declaration as regards a documents should have been claimed within three years. Hence, it is not acceptable that she had the knowledge of alleged fraud only after the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 have been recorded. 6. Further, the relief claimed by the Petitioner is barred by limitation. The relief of declaration as regards a documents should have been claimed within three years. Since the Plaintiff had knowledge of the fact in 1999, she would have made such a claim immediately. The present claim, by means of Amendment Application after a long time is barred by limitation. 7. In view of the above said circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity either legally or factually in the order passed by the Court below which deserves to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. The Revision fails. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order of the learned District Munisif, Guidyatham in I.A. NO.472 of 2009 in O.S. No.718 of 1998. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.