ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 passed in IA.No.167 of 2020 in O.S.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the prayer in the plaint by adding the prayer of declaration of title as well as in relevant places in the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri S.Malla Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Mehboob Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. The suit was originally filed by plaintiff No.1 and during the pendency of the suit, she expired, as such, plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 were impleaded as her legal representatives in the suit. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, required for adjudication of the present Revision Petition are that plaintiff No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2018 for recovery of possession, damages and perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their respective written statements. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC vide I.A.No.167 of 2020 for amendment of prayer in the plaint. 6. The case of plaintiff No.1, as averred in the application, is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from one Anreddy Janga Reddy through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2542 of 1980, dated 05.11.1980; that her vendor purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed, dated 01.07.1958, bearing document No.962 of 1958, from J.Narsimloo Mudiraj, M.Kareemullah and M.Sharfuddin; that her vendor, after giving notice under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad on 17.06.1980, executed the sale deed in her favour and thus, she became lawful owner of the suit schedule property and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 6.1. 6.1. While so, when one Bansilal and S.K.Ahmed started interfering with her possession of the suit schedule property, she filed a suit in O.S.No.403 of 2005 on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for permanent injunction restraining the said persons and the said suit was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006. When the things stood thus, on 10.02.2017, she received notice with grounds of appeal in CMA.No.22 of 2017 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, through which she came to know that defendant No.1 herein filed I.A.No.530 of 2015 in O.S.No.791 of 2015 seeking temporary injunction against her and defendant No.2 herein and two others, wherein defendant No.1 herein averred that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.1085 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013 executed by one Bachu Praveen Kumar, followed by release deed dated 07.08.2014 executed by P.Prashanthi Reddy, however, the said I.A was dismissed. 6.2. That earlier, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 02.05.2013 to defendant No.1 and P.Prashanthi Reddy (joint owner) stating that their vendor has no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. That defendant No.1 obtained building permission from Cantonment Board vide Permit No.1032 dated 29.07.2015 based on false and fabricated documents executed by persons who have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property and that plaintiff No.1 was illegally dispossessed from the subject property by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Hence, plaintiff No.1 filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, damages and perpetual injunction. 6.3. Plaintiff No.1 further averred that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a suit filed for possession based on title, the plaintiff is bound to prove his/her title and pray for declaration of title of the suit schedule property, she filed an application vide I.A.No.167 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of prayer in the plaint by adding the prayer for declaration of title and also to declare her as owner of the suit schedule property. 7. 7. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counters inter alia stating that plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for declaration of title, possession, etc., within three years from the date of denial of title of plaintiff No.1, i.e., from 29.06.2013, on which date defendant No.1 issued reply notice categorically denying her title and hence, the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title is barred by limitation and only to fill up the lacunae, the application for amendment is filed, which is untenable and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. The trial Court, on due consideration of the pleadings of both the parties and the arguments advanced by their respective learned counsel, dismissed the application with an observation that the written statements filed by the defendants in the year 2018 itself are notice to the plaintiffs about the objection raised by defendants that the plaint without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable, yet no steps were taken by the plaintiffs from 02.04.2018 till 29.11.2019 i.e., almost one year eight months. The trial Court further observed that plaintiff No.1 has pleaded that she has filed O.S.No.403 of 2015 against the same defendants seeking perpetual injunction and it was decreed on 12.10.2006, however, she has not whispered when she was allegedly dispossessed and therefore, in view of the same, the limitation runs from 12.10.2006 and adding the prayer of declaration of title at this stage, would simply mean that the plaintiff is trying to overcome the limitation period of three years, as per Article 58 of the LIMITATION ACT , to seek the declaration of title and that no reason whatsoever is given by the plaintiffs for not taking steps till 2020, though the suit is filed in the year 2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that cause of action for filing the suit arose in November, 2012 when plaintiff had visited the suit schedule property and found that one Bachu Praveen Kumar, represented by one B. Pramod, had unlawfully occupied the said property. 9.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Article 64 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, the limitation period for filing suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title is 12 years from the date of dispossession. 9.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Article 64 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, the limitation period for filing suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title is 12 years from the date of dispossession. He further submitted that in the instant case, plaintiff No.2 was dispossessed of suit schedule property in November 2012 and the suit was filed in the year 2018 for the relief or recovery of possession, which is well within limitation. He further submitted that if the present application for amendment of prayer in the plaint is allowed, the plaintiffs’ suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property would be based on title, for which the limitation prescribed in Article 65 of the Schedule to the LIMITATION ACT is applicable, which is 12 years from the date when the possession of defendant become adverse to the plaintiff, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the said aspect in proper perspective and erred in dismissing the application filed for amendment of prayer in the plaint, by erroneously referring to Article 58 of the Schedule to the LIMITATION ACT which has no application to the present case. 9.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the amendment sought is necessary to bring the pleadings in line with the actual cause of action, particularly, with respect to the date of dispossession, which is crucial for adjudicating the question of limitation. 9.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit is still at the initial stage, i.e., issues are yet to be framed and the trial has not yet commenced, therefore, if the proposed amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, as they will have a full and fair opportunity to contest the suit on all available grounds. 10. Learned counsel for revision petitioners/plaintiffs, in support of his aforesaid contentions, has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (1) Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and another , AIR 2002 SC 3369 (2) Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others , AIR 2006 SC 1647 (3) N. Thajudeen Vs. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board , 2024 (6) ALT 53 (SC) 11. Ayyakannu and another , AIR 2002 SC 3369 (2) Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others , AIR 2006 SC 1647 (3) N. Thajudeen Vs. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board , 2024 (6) ALT 53 (SC) 11. In Sampath Kumar ’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as hereunder: “Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof.” 12. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal ’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as hereunder: “The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 13. In N. Thajudeen ’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: “Though the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues as per Article 58 of the Schedule to the LIMITATION ACT , but for recovery of possession based upon title, the limitation is 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule to the LIMITATION ACT .” 14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 submitted that the amendment of plaint by inserting the prayer for declaration of title is barred by limitation and the trial Court has appreciated the same in respect of the facts of the case in a proper perspective and rightly dismissed the application and hence, the impugned order requires no interference by this Court and accordingly, the Revision Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 14.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in support of his aforesaid contentions, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Anr. Vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi and Ors. /b> . 2025 Live Law (SC) 428. 15. 14.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in support of his aforesaid contentions, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Anr. Vs. Hitesh P. Sanghvi and Ors. /b> . 2025 Live Law (SC) 428. 15. In Nikhila Divyang Mehta ’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as hereunder: “The relief of declaration claimed in the suit at hand does not fall under Articles 56 and 57 and, therefore, by necessary implication, Article 58 would stand attracted which provides for a limitation period of three years to obtain any other declaration other than that mentioned under Articles 56 and 57. It provides that for such a declaration, the limitation is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. 16. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/defendant No.2 submitted that plaintiffs filed multiple applications, vide I.A.No.167 of 2020 and I.A.No.1395 of 2023 in the above suit from time to time seeking for amendment of plaint and it is settled law that filing of repeated applications for the same and similar reliefs is nothing but an act of abuse of process of law, and as such, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the revision petitioners failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and hence, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16.1. Learned counsel further submitted that defendant No.2 is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 06.12.2007 and in spite of knowledge of the said fact, the plaintiff filed the suit originally without seeking declaration of title and even otherwise, with the lapse of time, a lawful right has accrued to defendant No.2. He further submitted that the plaintiff has utterly failed to make out a tenable case for seeking the proposed amendment of plaint and prayed to dismiss the Revision. 17. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for defendant No.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another , (2022) 16 SCC 1 . 18. 17. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for defendant No.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another , (2022) 16 SCC 1 . 18. In Sanjeev Builders ’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as hereunder: “A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.” 19. This Court has bestowed its earnest consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and thoroughly perused the entire material available on record vis-à-vis the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. 20. As per the plaint pleadings, the cause of action for filing the suit arose from the alleged dispossession of the plaintiff in November 2012. As per Article 64 of the Schedule to the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, the limitation for filing suit for possession based on previous possession is twelve (12) years from the date of dispossession. 21. Furthermore, it is to be noted that by allowing the plaintiffs’ application for amendment of the prayer in the plaint by inserting the relief of declaration of title, the plaintiffs’ suit for recovery of possession would be necessarily based on title, in which event, Article 65 of the Schedule to the LIMITATION ACT , 1955 squarely applies, wherein the limitation prescribed is twelve (12) years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff and as such, the contention of the defendants that by the present amendment application, the plaintiffs are seeking to fill up the lacunae is not tenable. 22. In Sanjeev Builders ’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: “Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the Court is required to be liberal in its approach. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the Court is required to be liberal in its approach. The Court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. 23. It is relevant to note that it is the case of the plaintiffs that title of plaintiff No.1 to the suit schedule property dates way back 1980, i.e., vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.2542 of 1980, dated 05.11.1980, executed by Anreddy Janga Reddy and that the said vendor had, in turn, purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 01.07.1958, bearing document No.962 of 1958, from J.Narsimloo Mudiraj, M.Kareemullah and M.Sharfuddin. It is also their case that their vendor had issued a notice under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, to the SO & CA, ULC, Hyderabad, on 17.06.1980, before executing the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1. Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs regarding the chain of title in favour of plaintiff No.1 is based on the registered documents. 24. The plaintiff earlier filed suit O.S.No.403 of 2005 for perpetual injunction against one Bansilal and S.K.Ahmed, which was decreed in her favour on 12.10.2006 and the appeal filed against the said decree, vide C.M.A.No.22 of 2017 is pending. Subsequently, the plaintiff became aware that defendant No.1 had filed suit OS. No.791 of 2015 against her and two others and she was set ex parte in that suit. 25. In view of the objection raised by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable without seeking the declaratory relief, the amendment to the plaint to include the prayer for declaration of title becomes necessary for proper adjudication of the issues. The amendment sought for by the plaintiffs in fact, does not introduce a new cause of action but only seeks to comprehend and complete the reliefs sought for in the plaint. 26. The amendment sought for by the plaintiffs in fact, does not introduce a new cause of action but only seeks to comprehend and complete the reliefs sought for in the plaint. 26. Furthermore, it is apt to note that the amendment of prayer in the plaint is sought for by the plaintiffs prior to commencement of trial in the suit, i.e., issues are yet to be framed, and as such, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sampath Kumar ’s case (cited supra) is squarely applicable to the instant case, wherein it is held that pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. 27. Apart from the above, applying the proposition of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal ’s case (cited supra), that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side, it is to be noted that by the proposed amendment of prayer in the plaint, the lis between the parties can be adjudicated by framing of necessary issues in that regard and no prejudice and injustice can be said to be caused to the defendants. 28. In the light of the foregoing discussion and reasons and also in the light of the settled legal position, this Court is considered opinion that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application. 29. Resultantly, this Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 07.06.2024 passed in IA.No.167 of 2020 in O.S.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.167 of 2020 stands allowed. However, it is made clear that the trial Court shall adjudicate and dispose of the suit, based on the merits of the suit, uninfluenced by any observations, if any, made by this Court in this order. 30. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.