ORDER : 1. This revision petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in I.A. No. 938 of 2018 in O.S. No. 819 of 2007, where-under the petition filed by the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 7 to amend the written statement was allowed. 2. Heard Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri K. Naveen Kumar, learned representing Sri K.P. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The revision petitioners herein are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in O.S. No. 819 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S. No. 819 of 2007 before the Court below. 4. Brief facts of the case: 4.1. The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 819 of 2007 before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration to declare them as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property i.e. land admeasuring Ac. 2.12 gts. in Sy. No. 105/12/E, situated at Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property and also sought other relief of declaration to declare the illegal entries crepted in the name of Muthaiah, Bantu Shivaiah, Bantu Shankaraiah, in the pahani for the year 1955-58, 1960-61, 1964-65, 1966-67 and thereafter in the subsequent year as and when the names of third parties appeared and the name of Cherka Narsimhulu in the pahani for the year 1997-98, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003. 4.2. In the said suit, the defendants filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiffs. When the suit is posted for defendants’ evidence, the defendants have filed application i.e. I.A. No. 938 of 2018, seeking amendment of written statement by adding paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The Court below allowed the application, by its order dated 20.12.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the present revision petition. 5. When the suit is posted for defendants’ evidence, the defendants have filed application i.e. I.A. No. 938 of 2018, seeking amendment of written statement by adding paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The Court below allowed the application, by its order dated 20.12.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the present revision petition. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended that after completion of plaintiffs’ evidence and when the suit is posted for defendants’ evidence, at that stage, the defendants have filed application seeking amendment of written statement and the same is contrary to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. as the trial of the suit was already commenced. He further contended that the amendment sought by the defendants is going to alter the nature of the suit and they filed the application to drag on the proceedings, especially the defendants have not stated any reasons why they have not filed the application before framing of issues or atleast before commencement of the trial. In such circumstances, the Court below ought to have dismissed the application. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the defendants have not withdrawing any admission made in the written statement nor introducing any new case and they are only elaborating the pleadings, which are already pleaded in the written statement. By virtue of the said amendment, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiffs. The defendants have stated reasons in support of application and the Court below after considering the contentions of the respective parties and also taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others, 2007 SCC Online SC 53, Sushil Kumar Jain vs. Manoj Kumar and Another, AIR 2009 SC 2544 and Baldev Singh and Others vs. Manohar Singh and Another, AIR 2006 SC 2832 rightly allowed the application and there is illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 819 of 2007 seeking declaration, perpetual injunction and other reliefs. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 819 of 2007 seeking declaration, perpetual injunction and other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint inter alia contending that prior to filing of the present suit, the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 135 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property and the said suit was dismissed and further stated that the defendants are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit scheduled property and their grandfather, by name, Narsimha, purchased the suit schedule property from Muthaiah, who is the father of the plaintiffs, in the year 1965, and since then, the grandfather of the defendants is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interference and they are successors of Narsimha and also pleaded other pleadings. The defendants filed application i.e. I.A. No. 938 of 2018, seeking amendment of the written statement by adding Para Nos. 8, 9 and 10, which reads as follows: Para No. 8: The defendants submit that the plaintiff no. 1 filled injunction suit being OS No. 135 of 2003 on the file of Jr. Civil Judge, Vikarabad (Old OS No. 58 of 2003 on the file of Jr. Civil Judge at Chevella) in respect of the present suit property against the defendants no. 1 to 7 herein on 07.05.2003 restraining the defendants not to cause interference in the possession of suit land claiming that he and his brothers have succeeded the said property from their ancestor and contended that the defendants have no right or interest in the said land. The plaintiff no. 1 along with his two brothers, plaintiffs 2 and 3 have filed present suit for declaration of ownership, injunction and to declare the entries made in the names of Muthaiah, Bantu Shivalah, Bantu Shankarajah, in the pahanies for the year 1955-58, 1960-61, 1964-65, 1966-67 and the name of Cheraka Narsimha for the year 1997-98, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 from the possessory column OS No. 135 of 2003 as the claim should include whole of the claim. The plaintiffs have omitted to claim the said reliefs in the earlier suit or now barred from seeking such claims as the same is hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC. On this ground alone the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed. Para No. 9: The defendants submit that they have filed their written statement in OS No. 58 of 2003 on 24.07.2003 before the Junior civil Judge, Chevella (later transferred to Junior civil Judge, vikarabad, and renumbered as OS No. 135 of 2003) claiming their ownership and possession of the suit land. Thus the present suit presented by the plaintiffs on 03.09.2007 is hopelessly barred by the limitation from the date of filing of written statement, namely on 24.07.2003. Para No. 10: The defendants submit that their ancestor, Cheraka Narsimha was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land since 1965 and thereafter his heirs i.e. the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the land till today exercising all ownership and enjoyment of the land till today exercising all ownership and possessory rights over the suit land. Thus the defendants in alternate submit that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. 8. The above said amendment reveals that the defendants have not withdrawn any pleadings, which are pleaded in the original written statement, and they have not introduced any new case. In Para No. 8 of the proposed amendment of written statement, the defendants have elaborated the pleadings in respect of earlier suit in O.S. No. 135 of 2003 filed by the plaintiffs before Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vikarabad, and they only pleaded legal ground that present suit i.e. O.S. No. 819 of 2007, filed by the plaintiffs is hit by Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. and barred by limitation. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that the question of amendment of pleadings raising claims barred by law of limitation was a subject of numerous case laws and the most often quoted one is L.J. Leach and Company Ltd. vs. Jardine Skinner and Co. AIR 1957 SC 357 to the effect that Courts as a rule decline for the amendments that are barred by limitation on the date of application, but the issue of limitation is only a factor to be taken into consideration in exercise of discretion of the Court to permit or deny such an amendment. 10. AIR 1957 SC 357 to the effect that Courts as a rule decline for the amendments that are barred by limitation on the date of application, but the issue of limitation is only a factor to be taken into consideration in exercise of discretion of the Court to permit or deny such an amendment. 10. The discretion given to Courts to permit amendment of time barred claims was fine tuned to the effect that those amendments which do not introduce a new claim for the first time after the expiry of the period of limitation could be allowed. 11. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others, AIR 1957 SC 363 after referring the case Law till that point of time opined at Para 11 as under: “11. The same principles, we hold, should apply to the present case. The amendments do not really introduce a new case and the application filed by the appellant himself shows that he was not taken by surprise nor did he have to meet a new claim set up for the first time after the expiry of the period of limitation.” 12. Insofar as Para No. 10 of the proposed amendment of written statement is concerned, the defendants in the original written statement pleaded that their grandfather, by name, Narsimha, purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1965 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and thereafter his legal heirs, i.e. the defendants, are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and in Para No. 10, the defendants alternatively claimed that by virtue of their longstanding possession, they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Hence, the burden lies upon the defendants to establish the same by producing necessary evidence and by virtue of the said amendment, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiffs. 13. Hence, the burden lies upon the defendants to establish the same by producing necessary evidence and by virtue of the said amendment, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiffs. 13. It is already stated supra that the defendants filed amendment application seeking amendment of the written statement by elaborating the pleadings which are already pleaded in the written statement by adding legal pleas about maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiffs hit by Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. and the suit is barred by limitation and they perfected their title by adverse possession and they have not withdrawn any pleadings, which are mentioned in the original written statement or they have not introduced any new case. The Court below exercised the discretion vested upon them and rightly allowed the application and the same is within the ambit of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the Court below to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioners are granted liberty to file rejoinder to the additional written statement, if so they are aggrieved. No costs. 16. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.