JUDGMENT 1. This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dtd. 1/6/2016, in I.A.No.236 of 2015 in O.S.No.20 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, (in short 'the court below'), which was filed under order VI, rule 17 and 151 of CPC to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint as described in the petition. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants before the court below. 3. The plaintiffs i.e petitioners herein have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property. It is contended that while preparing the chief affidavit, it was found that the sale deed in question dtd. 5/2/1999 executed by 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent as spurious, sham and nominal, but they did not seek relief of declaration. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, an application has been in the said suit vide I.A.No.236 of 2015. The trial court after hearing on both the sides held that there was no relief sought by the plaintiffs in the suit. The limitation for seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deed is 3 years. Therefore, the plea taken by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and that dismissed the petition. Assailing the same, the present revision came to be filed. 4. Heard M/s Unnam Law Firm, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. M. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that in the plaint the plaintiffs had categorically claimed that the alleged Sale Deed dated 5/2/9 is sham and concocted and the same is illegal. Therefore, the proposed amendment sought to be brought in the plaint with respect to the said cancellation of the sale deed dtd. 5/2/2009 could never be presumed to be an amendment which would prejudicially affect the rights of the defendants under the law of limitation. Moreover, the trial court ought to have considered Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in computing the period of limitation for the purpose of considering the relief sought for cancellation of sale deed. 5/2/2009 could never be presumed to be an amendment which would prejudicially affect the rights of the defendants under the law of limitation. Moreover, the trial court ought to have considered Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in computing the period of limitation for the purpose of considering the relief sought for cancellation of sale deed. Further contended that the proposed amendment does not bring any new cause of action on the new basis of new set of facts and more over, the proposed amendment is being sought for even before the commencement of the trial and therefore, the defendants would have ample opportunity to file their additional written statement if any with regard to those aspects. Hence the revision is liable to be allowed. 6. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent reiterated the contentions urged in before the court below and placed on record the case status of the suit viz., 26/9/2018, 10/10/2018, 24/10/2018, 1/11/2018, 14/11/2018 and 26/11/2018 and contended that the trial has been commenced and PW-1 was present and Ex.A12 to A21 documents marked and the suit was posted for cross examination on 6/12/2018. Therefore, question of amending plaint does not arise after commencement of trial and that revision is not maintainable, same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "Pothuraju Narasaiah v. Suroju Nagamani and Others", 2012(2) ALD 82 wherein it was held as follows: " 5. The principles relating to the amendment of the pleadings have been illustrated by Sarkar, J, in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in A.K.Gupta and Sons Limited v. Damodar Vally Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 , in the following words: 7. It is not in dispute that the date of the application for amendment, a suit for a money claim under the contract was barred. The general rule no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred : Weldon v. Neale, (1887) 19 QBD 394. The general rule no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred : Weldon v. Neale, (1887) 19 QBD 394. But it is also well recognized that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than, a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation: see Charan Das v. Amir Khan 47 Ind App 255 ( AIR 1921 PC 50 ) and L.J. Leach and Co Ltd v. Jardine Skinner and Co., 1957 SCR 438 = AIR 1957 SC 357 ). Further, he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "A.K.Gupta and Sons Limited v. Damodar Valley Corporation", AIR (SC) 1967-0-96 wherein it was held as follows: " 5. The amendment sought is necessary for a decision of the real dispute between the parties which is what are their rights under the contract? That dispute was clearly involved in the plaint as originally framed. All the necessary basic facts had been stated. Only through a misconception a relief which could be asked on those facts had not been asked. It would not have been necessary to ask for it unless the plaintiff had at a late stage taken the point that the suit should fail without more in the absence of that relief. We find the present case indistinguishable from Charan Das's case, 47 Ind App 255: ( AIR 1921 PC 50 )." 9. As decision cited supra, as no new cause of action, which is time barred, is sought to be introduced by way of amendment. Further trial of the suit, since not yet commenced, no prejudice will be caused to defendant in suit by allowing the amendment. In the instant case, chief affidavit of PW-1 has been filed and marked exhibits on his behalf and it is coming up for cross examination of PW-1 only as per the case status submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. 10. In the instant case, chief affidavit of PW-1 has been filed and marked exhibits on his behalf and it is coming up for cross examination of PW-1 only as per the case status submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents in case carry out the amendment in the plaint and no further evidence is eventually required for the same. In view of the ratio laid down in the decisions referred supra, the amendment can be done before commencement of trial in the suit. Since the plaintiffs had claiming that the alleged sale deed dtd. 5/2/2009 is sham and concocted, question of falling limitation does not arise. But the trial court holding that the proposed amendment of seeking relief is barred by limitation of 3 years is untenable, the same cannot be looked into as per decision cited supra. 11. In view of the same, it apparent in the impugned order of the court below that there is clear irregularity or impropriety and warrants interference of this Court. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, the C.R.P is allowed, while setting aside the impugned order of the court below, dtd. 1/6/2016. Since the suit is of the year 2016 and it is a oldest matter, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight (08) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the court below to conclude the proceedings within time frame as fixed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.