JUDGMENT : Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents are present. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Hardeep Singh Sidhu-plaintiff in the Title Suit No.116 of 2013 against the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-1, at Jamshedpur wherein learned trial court has partly refused to allow the amendment of the new paragraph-32 as sought by way of the amendment application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who is the plaintiff has filed the Title Suit No.116 of 2013 with the prayer to declare the Gift Deed No. 4482 dated 22.05.1982 and one unregistered will dated 07.06.1982 which is alleged to be executed and registered by late Sardar Hem Singh in favour of defendants and their parents as forged, fabricated, null and void, ineffective, not binding and never acquired any right and interest from these deeds. 5. On behalf of plaintiff, the amendment application was filed which was partly allowed and partly rejected. 6. The learned trial court has held that from the proposed amendment of paragraph-32 the cause of action is changed and the amendment being of distinct cause of action the same could not be allowed. It is also further submitted that from the very para-32 which is the proposed amendment there is no new cause of action rather the cause of action is still the same which has been explained in detail by way of the proposed amendment. In view of the above submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and same should be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the amendment application partly in regard to the para-32 because it was in regard to the distinct cause of action and the suit which was since inception time barred and the defendant had moved the application to frame the preliminary issue in regard to the suit being time barred. If the proposed amendment is allowed the very cause of action will change and for the same no permission can be granted to allow the amendment application. If the proposed amendment is allowed the very cause of action will change and for the same no permission can be granted to allow the amendment application. Accordingly the amendment application which was rejected by the learned trial court has been rejected as per settled legal proposition of law. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the case law “State of A.P. And Others vs. Pioneer Builders, A.P.”, (2006) 12 SCC 119 . 8. From the very perusal of the plaint which is annexure no.1 of this writ petition, it is found that Hardeep Singh Sidhu has filed the suit against Harcharan Singh Sidhu and others with the prayer to declare the gift deed dated 22.05.1982 and the unregistered will dated 07.06.1982 alleged to have been executed and registered by late Hem Singh in favour of the defendants to be null and void being forged and fabricated. From the very perusal of the plaint it is also found showing the bundle of facts how the cause of action to file the suit arose in para-32 of the plaint. The plaintiff has averred that the cause of action arose on 29.11.2010 and thereafter when he came to know about the existence of the aforesaid deed of gift for the first time in T.S. No. 88 of 1989 filed by the defendant. 9. From the very perusal of the amendment application which is annexure no.5 of supplementary affidavit dated 09.05.2024 it is found that the plaintiff has sought the amendment to add the para-32 in the plaint the facts that inspite the knowledge about the forged and fabricated deeds of gift and will, manufactured by the defendant with the help of Surrender Singh, late father of defendant no.1 and will by Harcharan Singh, the defendants never raised any claim of right, title interest, possession on the basis of the alleged gift deeds and will but only on 19.05.2011 on the sudden death of their mother and aunt Amarjeet Kour, the defendant openly gave out threats to the plaintiffs to implicate all the family members in false case of murder and also gave out the open threats that henceforth he will forcibly occupy the alleged gifted lands, house, shops, lodging hotel, streets which give rise to the actual apprehension of infringement of the rights. The plaintiff and family member give rise the cause of action for suit for declaration. 10. The plaintiff and family member give rise the cause of action for suit for declaration. 10. This proposed amendment is not at all the different cause of action rather by way of this proposed amendment how the cause of action to file the suit arose has been explained by the plaintiffs. In the original plaint itself the plaintiff has stated that he came to know in regard to the existence of the deeds of gifts for the first time in T.S. No. 88 of 1989 and cause of action arose to the suit on 29.11.2010. Herein by way of the proposed amendment the plaintiff has explained this fact also that on 19.05.2011 the defendants openly threats to occupy the property in suit which they have alleged to acquire by way of the alleged gift deed and will which has been sought to be declared null and void by the plaintiff. 11. From the proposed amendment neither the cause of action is changed nor the nature of the suit is changed even the subject matter of the suit also remains the same. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that he has moved the application to frame the preliminary issue to decide the issue of limitation as the suit of plaintiff was time barred. If the proposed amendment is allowed the defendant would be prejudiced and would suffer the irreparable loss. This contention made by learned counsel for the respondents is not found tenable reason being so far as the preliminary issue of limitation is concerned the merits of the same cannot be gone into by the court while disposing the amendment applications. What will be the fate of the issue of limitation that is the different matter. From the proposed amendment, no cause of action is changed and nature of the suit is also not changed even no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendant because he has the remedy to rebut these averments which has been added by way of the proposed amendment in para-32 by filing the additional written statement. 13. So far as the stage of the suit is concerned admittedly the suit was at the initial stage even at the time of moving the amendment application the issues were also not framed. 13. So far as the stage of the suit is concerned admittedly the suit was at the initial stage even at the time of moving the amendment application the issues were also not framed. So far as the case law upon which the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon same is not applicable in the facts of the suit and the amendment application wherein there is no distinct cause of action. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court needs interference and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 14. The writ petition is hereby allowed. 15. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court upto the extent by which the amendment application of the plaintiff/petitioner herein has been rejected, the same is set aside and the amendment application is also allowed upto that extent which was rejected by the learned trial court. 16. The trial court is directed to permit the plaintiff to incorporate the amendment in the plaint within one week after receiving the copy of the order either producing by the parties or received from any mode as well. The defendant/respondent shall have the liberty to file additional written statement to rebut amended pleadings in the plaint.