ORDER : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad in IA.No.792 of 2015 in OS.No.128 of 2007, dated 04.03.2022. 2. Petitioner is the respondent No.4-defendant No.4, respondent No.1 is the petitioner-plaintiff, respondent No.2 is respondent No.1-defendant No.1 in IA.No.792 of 2015 in OS.No.128 of 2007. 3. It is mentioned in the cause title of the CRP that respondent Nos.3 to 6-respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6-defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are not necessary parties. 4.1. Respondent No.1-petitioner stated in the affidavit (i.e. in IA.No.792 of 2015) that during the lift time of his mother (respondent No.2-defendant No.1) and before her demise, after filing the suit, defendant No.4 (petitioner herein) got executed various gift deeds involving most of the properties in his favour and to give a belief that he is making a fair play, got executed few gift deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 (respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein) disproportionately when his mother was mentally and physically unstable to misappropriate much of the assets of the family and to deprive the rights of the plaintiff (i.e., respondent No.1-petitioner). Defendant Nos.2 to 6 (respondent Nos.3, 4, petitioner, respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein) got executed the following deeds: 4.2. Without the knowledge of respondent No.1-petitioner all the manipulation is the brainchild of defendant No.4 (petitioner herein) to knock away the properties and he came to know about the gift deeds recently and sought to declare them as not binding on him consequently to declare them as null and void. If the application is not allowed seeking cancellation of the gift settlement deeds, respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and damage and prayed to declare the gift deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 as null and void and consequently to declare the same as not binding on respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff. 5. If the application is not allowed seeking cancellation of the gift settlement deeds, respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and damage and prayed to declare the gift deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 as null and void and consequently to declare the same as not binding on respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff. 5. Petitioner-respondent No.4 has filed counter and contended that respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff is having knowledge about the gift settlement deeds on 08.02.2008 when defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) has filed her written statement, all the gift deeds were already furnished to the counsel for respondent No.1- petitioner-plaintiff before the trial Court and after lapse of 7 ½ years respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff cannot seek declaration to declare the gift settlement deeds as not binding on him and to declare them as null and void which is hopelessly barred by limitation. By virtue of registered gift settlement deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the petitioner-respondent No.4, he is collecting the rents from the tenants as a lawful owner and respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled for any share. Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled to seek amendment for cancellation of gift settlement deed after lapse of time and the application is barred by limitation, prayed to dismiss the same. 6.1. The learned trial Court allowed IA.No.792 of 2015 on 12.07.2017. 6.2. Petitioner has filed CRP against the order dated 12.07.2017 vide CRP No.4019 of 2017 which was allowed by the High Court on 23.02.2018 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 6.3. After remand the learned trial Court has allowed IA.No.792 of 2015 vide order dated 04.03.2022 which is impugned in the CRP. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent No.4- defendant No.4 submits that the learned trial Court ignored the findings of the High Court in CRP No.4019 of 2017 dated 23.02.2018 and erred in allowing the petition in part permitting the respondent No.1-petitioner to amend the plaint for inclusion of the relief to declare the gift deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 (respondent No.4, petitioner and respondent No.5 herein) as null and void subject to payment of cost of Rs.650/- and on payment of required Court Fee. The learned trial Court failed to see that IA.No.792 of 2015 is barred by law as the gift deeds were executed long back commencing from 2007 till the end of October, 2008. The learned trial Court failed to see that IA.No.792 of 2015 is barred by law as the gift deeds were executed long back commencing from 2007 till the end of October, 2008. Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff sought for amendment after lapse of seven years which is contrary to Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The learned trial Court failed to comply the orders of the High Court in CRP No.4019 of 2017 dated 23.02.2018 and did not answer with regard to the limitation. The plea of limitation raised by the petitioner-respondent No.4-defendant No.4 is not tenable and acceptable which finding is wholly in contradiction with the observations of the High Court in CRP No.4019 of 2017. The trial Court fell in error in holding that the proposed amendment sought by the respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff is pre-trial amendment, when admittedly issues were framed, respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff has already filed his chief affidavit as PW.1. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Radhika Devi Vs. Bajrangi Singh and others , (1996) 7 SCC 486 (2) Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others , (2009) 10 SCC 84 , (3) Upender Prasad Dhube Vs. Shyamalamma Dhube and others , 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3660 , (4) Ashwani Sood Vs. Chanderkanta and another , 2024 SCC OnLine HP 136 and prayed to allow the CRP by setting aside the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly allowed the application filed by respondent No.1-petitioner. Amendment is carried out and neat copy is filed, the amended plaint was returned by the trial Court as the amendment carried out was not in accordance with the orders passed in IA.No.792 of 2015, dated 04.03.2022. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Sree Sree Iswar Radha Behari Jew and Sree Sree Iswar Salgram Jew Represented by Basudeb Das Vs. Smalati P.Soni , 2019 AIR (Cal) 131. 9. Learned counsel on record have filed their written arguments in support of their contentions. 10. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? 12.1. 9. Learned counsel on record have filed their written arguments in support of their contentions. 10. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court? 12.1. Respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff has filed suit under Section 26, Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for partition and separate possession of the plaint ’A’ to ‘G’ properties and for allotment of 1/7th share and to pass a final decree in terms of preliminary decree. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.2-defendant No.1 died thereby respondent No.1-plaintiff has amended the plaint stating that he is entitled for 1/6 th share in the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘G’ properties. 12.2. The further case of the plaintiff is that all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and they are liable for partition. Suit came to be filed on 27.09.2007 and got registered on 06.10.2007. 13. Respondent No.2-defendant No.1 has filed her written statement and contended that ‘A’ schedule property is self acquired property having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1960. Thereafter obtained Municipal permission from M.C.H. and constructed a building in the year 1977 and she has gifted different portions of ‘A’ schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3, 4 & 5 i.e., respondent No.4, revision petitioner and respondent No.5 herein and her granddaughters by virtue of registered gift settlement deed. Therefore, the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) has no share in ‘A’ schedule property. In so far as ‘B’ schedule property is concerned respondent No.2-defendant No.1 stated that she has no objection to partition the property and ‘C’ schedule properties is acquired by late B.Shankaraiah and he executed a will on 11.02.2004 in favour of defendant No.6 P.Gayatri (respondent No.6 herein) and she is alone entitled for the same. Suit schedule ‘D’ property is concerned B.Shankaraiah and defendant No.1 have purchased the same through three registered sale deeds. Suit schedule ‘D’ property is concerned B.Shankaraiah and defendant No.1 have purchased the same through three registered sale deeds. B.Shankaraiah has bequeathed the same to defendant No.3 under a will deed dated 11.02.2004 and defendant No.3 is in possession of one portion and the remaining portion was purchased by her through her stridhana property and she gifted the same in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 5 by virtue of gift deeds as such respondent No.1-plaintiff is not entitled for any share. ‘E’ schedule property is purchased by Shankaraiah and he gifted the same to his wife vide gift deed document No.226 of 1954 and she became the absolute owner thereof and thereafter she gifted the same to defendant No.4 by virtue of registered gift deed. ‘F’ schedule property is acquired by B.Shankaraiah and he bequeathed the same to defendant No.2 by virtue of will deed executed by him. ‘G’ schedule property is acquired by defendant No.1 by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 31.12.2003 with her stridhana property and the plaintiff has no share. 14. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 (respondent Nos.3, 4, petitioner and respondent No.5 herein) in the suit have filed their written statement which is adopted by defendant No.6 (respondent No.6 herein). Their written statement is similar to the written statement of respondent No.2-defendant No.1. Defendant No.7-Vinod Kumar Malani is added as a party in the suit as per orders in IA.No.1410 of 2008 dated 01.12.2009. Defendant Nos.8 to 29 are also added in the suit as per the orders in IA.No.2504 of 2010 dated 13.09.2012. Defendant Nos.7 to 29 are the tenants of the plaint schedule property. 15. The prayer made in IA.No.792 of 2015 is as under: “It is prayed this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out amendments in pleadings/plaint for declaration to declare that the gift deeds got executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 as null and void and consequently to declare that same are not binding on the petitioner/plaintiff in the interest of justice”. 16. Now it is apt to refer Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice which reads as under: “28. (New) Amendment in Pleadings: An application for amendment made under Order I, Rule 10, Order VI, Rule 17, or Order XXII of the Code, shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments. 16. Now it is apt to refer Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice which reads as under: “28. (New) Amendment in Pleadings: An application for amendment made under Order I, Rule 10, Order VI, Rule 17, or Order XXII of the Code, shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments. The Presiding Officer shall reject the application if it is not in accordance with the law or these rules. Provided that verbal corrections may at any time be made in pleadings with permission of the Court”. 17. On reading of Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice an application for amendment shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments. The Presiding Officer shall reject the application if it is not in accordance with the law or these rules. Admittedly, in the prayer portion in IA.No.792 of 2015 it does not contain the consequential amendment. The learned trial Court has lost sight of the same and did not answer with regard to Rule 28. 18. Suit Docket Proceedings dated 07.09.2017, 15.09.2017, 18.09.2017 (Issue No.4), 18.07.2019, 04.03.2022, 10.03.2022, 12.04.2022, 16.06.2022, 13.07.2022, 10.08.2022, 13.09.2022 which reads as under: 19. IA.No.792 of 2015 was initially allowed on 12.07.2017 by the learned trial Court by a cryptic order thereby the petitioner- respondent No.4 filed CRP before the High Court vide CRP No.4019 of 2017 which was allowed on 23.02.2018 and was remanded for fresh consideration. The observation of the High Court in CRP No.4019 of 2017, dated 12.07.2017 is with a direction to consider the contentions of the parties therein and to pass appropriate reasoned order afresh in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 20. It is the contention of the petitioner-respondent No.4 in the counter filed in IA.No.792 of 2015 that the amendment application filed by respondent No.1-petitioner is barred by limitation and hit by Article 59 of the Limitation Act i.e., to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree for the recession of the contract is 3 years when it is first become known to the party. The prayer made in IA.No.792 of 2015 is to declare the gift deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 as null and void and consequently not binding on him. Hence, Article 59 is not applicable to the facts of the case. The prayer made in IA.No.792 of 2015 is to declare the gift deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 as null and void and consequently not binding on him. Hence, Article 59 is not applicable to the facts of the case. Article 58 of the Limitation Act states that to obtain any other declaration, the period is 3 years when the right to sue first accrues. 21. It is the contention of respondent No.1-petitioner counsel that the suit is filed on 27.09.2007 and registered on 06.10.2007, summons to the defendant Nos.1 to 6 therein were served on 23/24-10-2007. Admittedly, defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) has filed her written statement on 08.02.2008 and stated that she executed gift settlement deeds in respect of ‘A’ schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 and her grand-daughters and also stated in the written statement with regard to ‘D’ schedule property that she has executed registered gift settlement deeds in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 5 and in respect of ‘G’ schedule property she stated that the properties acquired by her through a registered sale deed, dated 31.12.2003 and that she has right to deal with the property standing in her name. Defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) has specifically contended in the written statement that she has gifted ‘A’ and ‘D’ schedule properties by way of registered gift deeds in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5. In so far as ‘G’ schedule property is concerned defendant No.1 has executed registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.4 on 13.10.2008 vide document No.5630 of 2008 after filing the written statement. It can be said that it is a deemed notice to the respondent No.1-petitioner that schedule ‘A’ and ‘D’ properties are gifted by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5. As stated supra for seeking any other declaration the period of limitation is three years when the right to sue first accrues. In this case, this court is of the view that right to sue first accrues when defendant No.1 has filed her written statement on 08.02.2008. Furthermore, the affidavit in IA.No.792 of 2015 is silent about the date of knowledge of the gift deeds. It is stated in the affidavit that respondent No.1-petitioner came to know about the particulars recently. 22. In this case, this court is of the view that right to sue first accrues when defendant No.1 has filed her written statement on 08.02.2008. Furthermore, the affidavit in IA.No.792 of 2015 is silent about the date of knowledge of the gift deeds. It is stated in the affidavit that respondent No.1-petitioner came to know about the particulars recently. 22. Admittedly, daughters of defendant Nos.4 and 5 are not parties to the suit and as per the contention of respondent No.1- petitioner in IA.No.792 of 2015, defendant No.1 has executed a registered gift deed on 14.12.2007 vide document No.2186 of 2007 in favour of daughter of defendant No.5 in respect of ‘A’ schedule property for 256 square feet and two other registered gift deeds were executed by defendant No.1 in favour of elder and younger daughter of defendant No.4 vide document No.2183 of 2007 in respect of ‘A’ schedule property for 328.00 square feet and document No.2182 of 2007 in respect of ‘A’ schedule property for 336.00 square feet vide dated 14.12.2007. There is no explanation from respondent No.1-petitioner-plaintiff how he is entitled to seek a declaration to declare the documents void and not binding on him when the daughters of defendant Nos.4 and 5 are not parties to the suit. 23. On careful perusal of the affidavit of respondent No.1- petitioner in IA.No.792 of 2015, there is no para with regard to valuing the registered gift deeds to declare them as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It is a serious flaw in the application and the respondent No.1-petitioner has not sought nor valued the declaration of documents to be declared as null and void. This aspect goes to the root of the matter and the application made by respondent No.1-petitioner suffers from serious flaws. 24.1. The gift deed was executed and registered as early as 28.07.1978 which is a notice to everyone. Even after filing of the written statement, for 3 years no steps were taken to file the application for amendment of the plaint. Thereby the accrued right in favour of the respondents would be defeated by permitting amendment of the plaint: See Radhika Devi, (1996) 7 SCC 486 . The same view is followed in Upender Prasad Dhube, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3660. 24.2. Thereby the accrued right in favour of the respondents would be defeated by permitting amendment of the plaint: See Radhika Devi, (1996) 7 SCC 486 . The same view is followed in Upender Prasad Dhube, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3660. 24.2. Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments : On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bonafide or malafide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and or (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive : See Revajeetu Builders and Developers, (2009) 10 SCC 84 . 24.3. The proposed amendments ought to have been clearly and distinctly spelled out with reference to the place where these amendments were intended to be added in the amended plaint : See Ashwani Sood, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 136. 25. In Sree Sree Iswar Radhe Behari Jew, 2019 AIR (Cal) 13 the High Court of Calcutta held that “when does the trial of an election petition commences or what is the meaning to be assigned to the word trial in the context of an election petition”. The High Court held as under: “It is implicit that the commencement of trial, for the relevant purpose, is when the court applies its mind to assess the lis after the first affidavit of evidence is filed. To repeat, such application of the judicial mind is when the first witness proves his affidavit of evidence or such witness seeks to prove a document for it to be tendered in evidence or the cross-examination of such witness begins, whichever is earlier”. 26. To repeat, such application of the judicial mind is when the first witness proves his affidavit of evidence or such witness seeks to prove a document for it to be tendered in evidence or the cross-examination of such witness begins, whichever is earlier”. 26. Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others , (2005) 4 SCC 480 observed that “In a civil suit, the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence. All the proceedings before that stage are treated as proceedings preliminary to trial or for making the case ready for trial”. 27. In view of the Three Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court stated Supra, in a civil suit, the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording the evidence. In view of the above said decision, the decision cited by the respondent No.1-petitioner counsel is not applicable to the case on hand. 28. Respondent No.1-petitioner has not prayed for consequential amendment as per Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice in the petition. So also, the application filed for amendment of pleadings is also barred by limitation in view of the fact that respondent No.2- defendant No.1 has specifically stated in the written statement filed on 08.02.2008 that she gifted the properties to defendant Nos.3 to 5 and it is a deemed notice, which squarely falls within the ambit of the decision cited by the petitioner-respondent No.4 counsel in Radhika Devi case, (1996) 7 SCC 486 . The daughters of defendant Nos.4 and 5 are not parties to the suit and the respondent No.1-petitioner is estopped from seeking relief of declaration to declare the documents executed in the name of the daughters of defendant Nos.4 and 5 on 14.12.2007. 29. As stated supra, the application i.e., IA.No.792 of 2015 lacks material particulars such as at which para of the plaint, pleadings have to be amended. So also, there is no paragraph of valuation of declaration in the application. 30. Affidavit of PW.1 is already filed and defendant Nos.8 to 9 were impleaded in the suit but the documents were not marked. So also, there is no paragraph of valuation of declaration in the application. 30. Affidavit of PW.1 is already filed and defendant Nos.8 to 9 were impleaded in the suit but the documents were not marked. The learned trial Court observed that the predecessor has inadvertently posted the matter for trial though summons were not served on the impleaded parties i.e., defendant Nos.8 to 29 and mere filing of affidavit of PW.1 does not amounts to commencement of trial. The Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kailash, (2005) 4 SCC 480 held that in a civil suit the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording the evidence. Admittedly, affidavit of PW.1-plaintiff is already filed. The learned trial Court has lost sight of the contentions raised by the petitioner- respondent No.4 counsel and also failed to answer with regard to the limitation, with regard to declaration of documents of daughters of defendant Nos.4 and 5 who are not parties to the suit and also lost sight that material particulars are missing in IA.No.792 of 2015. 31. The decisions cited by the petitioner counsel stated supra are applicable to the case on hand. 32. In view of the reasons above, the order passed by the learned trial Court suffers from perversity and illegality and requires interference of this Court in exercise of Revisional Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be set aside. 33. In the result, CRP is allowed. Or der passed by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad in IA.No.792 of 2015, dated 04.03.2022 is set aside, consequently petition stands dismissed. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.