ORDER : J.SREENIVAS RAO, J. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.95 of 2024 in O.S.No.173 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri R.Rama Brahmma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.173 of 2017. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.173 of 2017 before the Court below. 4. Brief facts of the case: 4.1. Plaintiff No.1-M.Ram Reddy filed suit in O.S.No.154 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy against respondent No.1/defendant No.1 for specific performance of agreement of sale and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. Ac.3-00 of land covered by Survey Nos.833 part, 834 part, 836 part, 837 part and 838 part at Patancheru Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District (erstwhile Medak District). In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed written statement in the month of September, 2007, wherein it is averred that the suit schedule property along with other properties were sold in favour of Srinidhi Industries, represented by its partner M.S.Lokaiah, through registered sale deed dated 11.05.2006 and the possession was also delivered. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 died on 04.03.2020 and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were came on record as his legal heirs. Defendant Nos.2 to 9 were impleaded as party respondents. Pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, in Transfer O.P.No.53 of 2012, the above said suit was transferred to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, and renumbered as O.S.No.173 of 2017. 4.2. In the above suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.95 of 2024, seeking amendment of the plaint as well as prayer of the suit i.e., “that the alleged Registered Sale Deed, dated 11.05.2006 for the land to an extent of Ac.15-415 guntas, as null and void and not binding over the plaintiffs in any manner in respect of the suit schedule lands”. In the above suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.95 of 2024, seeking amendment of the plaint as well as prayer of the suit i.e., “that the alleged Registered Sale Deed, dated 11.05.2006 for the land to an extent of Ac.15-415 guntas, as null and void and not binding over the plaintiffs in any manner in respect of the suit schedule lands”. The Court below dismissed the above said application by its order 10.03.2025 on the ground of limitation, as the plaintiffs filed the application after lapse of 12 years, though they are having knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed, dated 11.05.2006 by defendant No.1 in favour of other defendants. Aggrieved by the above said order, the plaintiffs have filed the present civil revision petition. 5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs: 5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that as per the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings. However, the Court below without properly appreciating the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, erroneously dismissed the application solely on the ground of limitation, even though the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial only and not at the interlocutory stage. 5.2. He further submitted that plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property through agreement of sale and when defendant No.1 had failed to perform his part of contract and to execute the registered sale deed, plaintiff No.1 had approached the Court and filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale in respect of Ac.3-00 of land. Defendant No.1, without informing plaintiff No.1, alienated the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 9 and executed the registered sale deed dated 11.05.2006 in respect of Ac.15-415 guntas including the suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff. The above said alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of other defendants Nos.2 to 9 was not binding upon the plaintiffs. 5.3. He also submitted that the plaintiffs are not withdrawing any admissions made in the suit or introducing new case. By virtue of the proposed amendment, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants. The above said alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of other defendants Nos.2 to 9 was not binding upon the plaintiffs. 5.3. He also submitted that the plaintiffs are not withdrawing any admissions made in the suit or introducing new case. By virtue of the proposed amendment, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants. To avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiffs is very much maintainable under law. 5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments; i) Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K.Modi and others , [AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1647] ii) Pankaja and another v. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. and others , [AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4102] iii) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another , [ (2022) 16 SCC 1 ] 6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.3: 6.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/defendant No.3 submitted that defendant No.1 filed written statement in O.S.No.154 of 2007 in September, 2007, wherein he specifically stated that he executed the registered sale deed on 11.05.2006 in favour of Srinidhi Industries represented by its partner, M.S. Lokaiah, in respect of Ac.15-415 guntas, and delivered the physical possession of the said property including the suit schedule property claimed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of the purchasers. The plaintiffs have got knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of the purchasers i.e. defendant Nos.2 to 9 in the year 2007 itself. He further submitted that defendant Nos.2 to 9 have also filed written statement on 02.02.2011, wherein they specifically stated that they had purchased the property from defendant No.1 through registered sale deed on 11.05.2006 in respect of Ac.15-415 guntas by paying valuable sale consideration. In spite of the same, the plaintiffs have not taken proper steps, on the other hand, they filed I.A.No.95 of 2024 after lapse of long period of time. He also submitted that the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint after commencement of the trial is not permissible under law. Hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the said application. 6.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Basavaraj v. Indira and others , [2024 LawSuit (SC) 164] ii) Order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.961 of 2025, dated 04.04.2025. Analysis: 7. Hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the said application. 6.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Basavaraj v. Indira and others , [2024 LawSuit (SC) 164] ii) Order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.961 of 2025, dated 04.04.2025. Analysis: 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record including the impugned order passed by the Court below, it reveals that initially plaintiff No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.154 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale and for perpetual injunction against defendant No.1 only in respect of Ac.3-00 of land. Subsequently, the above said suit was transferred to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, and renumbered as O.S.No.173 of 2017. During the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff No.1 died and his legal heirs i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record. 8. The record further reveals that defendant No.1 filed written statement in September, 2007, wherein he specifically averred that he alienated the land to an extent of Ac.15.415 guntas in favour defendant Nos.2 to 9 through registered sale deed bearing document No.16923 of 2006 dated 11.05.2006 and received total sale consideration and also delivered the physical possession of the said property in their favour and since then, they have been in exclusive possession of the said property. Defendant Nos.2 to 9 have also filed written statement on 02.02.2011, wherein they stated that they purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 11.05.2006 by paying valuable sale consideration and since then they are in physical possession. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.95 of 2024 on 28.12.2023 i.e. after lapse of long period from the date of their knowledge of execution of registered sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 9, seeking amendment of the plaint as well as prayer of the suit i.e., “that the alleged Registered Sale Deed, dated 11.05.2006 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.15-415 guntas executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 9, is not binding over the plaintiffs and the same is null and void”. 9. 9. It is pertinent to mention that defendant No.1 in his written statement at paragraph No.9 specifically averred that he alienated the property through registered sale deed dated 11.05.2006 in favour of Srinidhi Industries represented by its partner M.S. Lokaiah. The above said transaction is even before institution of the suit. Similarly, defendant Nos.2 to 9 in their written statement dated 02.02.2011, in para No.5(i), specifically averred that they had purchased the property to an extent of Ac.15.415 guntas from defendant No.1 through registered sale deed on 11.05.2006 by paying valuable sale consideration and they are inducted in physical possession. The plaintiffs have not approached the Court and filed the application within the reasonable period and after lapse of a long period from the date of their knowledge i.e., September 2007 and on 02.02.2011, on which date defendant Nos.1 to 9 filed written statement. The plaintiffs have not given any reasons much less valid reasons for non-filing the application within reasonable time, especially the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. 10. It is pertinent to mention that in Jangili Venkateswarlu and others vs. Bandaru Omkaraiah and another, 2003(3) ALT 612 , the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, held that the party is not entitled to seek relief of recovery of possession by way of amendment invoking the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. By virtue of proposed amendment the character of the suit is going to be changed. Especially the suit was filed by the plaintiffs therein for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the defendants have taken a stand that they were in possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to the registered document. The plaintiffs have not taken any steps for seeking amendment of the plaint within the stipulated time. On the other hand, filed application seeking amendment of the plaint during the pendency of the appeal i.e. A.S.No.1469 of 1981, and the amendment sought by the party seeking for recovery of possession was barred by limitation. 11. In T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board, (2004) 3 SCC 392 the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring the decision in L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. 11. In T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board, (2004) 3 SCC 392 the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring the decision in L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. , [ AIR 1957 SC 357 ] , held that although Courts generally decline to permit amendments where a fresh suit based on the amended pleadings would be barred by limitation, such bar is merely a relevant factor in the exercise of judicial discretion. 12. It is also pertinent to mention that in Muni Lal v. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited and another , [ AIR 1996 SC 642 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the amendment of plaint seeking to introduce alternate relief of mandatory injunction for payment of specified amount is bad in law. The alternative relief was available to be asked for when the suit was filed but not made. He cannot be permitted to amend the plaint after the suit was barred by limitation during the pendency of the proceedings in the appellate Court or the second appellate Court. 13. The judgments which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs i.e. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra), Pankaja (supra) and Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground that, in the case on hand, defendant No.1 in his written statement, which was filed in the month of September, 2007, and defendant Nos.2 to 9 in their written statement, which was filed on 02.02.2011, they specifically mentioned that defendant No.1 alienated the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 9 through registered sale deed dated 11.05.2006. The petitioners have not given any specific reasons much less valid reasons why they have not filed application seeking proposed amendment within reasonable time. By virtue of the proposed amendment, the entire character of the suit is going to be changed, especially the proposed amendment sought by the parties is barred by limitation. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity or the error in the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, to exercise the supervisory powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity or the error in the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, to exercise the supervisory powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. After pronouncing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court that the petitioners be granted liberty to raise all the grounds, as may be available to them under law, in the suit before the Court below, and the Court below be directed to decide the suit on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by it in the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, passed in I.A.No.95 of 2024 or by this court in the present civil revision petition. 17. The above submission has not been opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.3. 18. In view of the same, the petitioners are granted liberty as prayed for and the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by it in the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.95 of 2024 or by this court in the present civil revision petition. In view of dismissal of civil revision petition, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.