ORDER : S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs : "a) a writ in the nature of certiorari or order, quashing the order dated 02-08-2025 passed on I.A.No.XVI in O.S.No.264/2018 by the court of the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, at Bhadravathi as per Annexure - ?. b) Such other writ or order as deemed fit under the circumstances of the case including an order for costs." 2. This petition by the defendant Nos.4 to 6 in O.S.No.264/2018 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.XVI, whereby the said application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for permission to amend the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioners and defendants No.1 to 3, for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. 5. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, the Trial Court proceeded to commence trial and the matter was posted for further cross-examination of PW1, at which stage, the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2/plaintiffs filed the instant application I.A.No.XVI, for permission to amend the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings as para-7A and corresponding prayers in the prayer column of the plaint. The said application was opposed by the petitioners/defendants No.4 to 6 on various grounds including the ground that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation and was impermissible in law to be added by way of amendment. By the impugned order, the Trial Court proceeded to allow the application by keeping open the issue regarding limitation by holding as under: "12. As already said, under the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs intend to bring pleadings regarding the father of defendant No.5 and 6 Somla Naik allegedly creating documents fraudulently in respect of suit item No.3 of the property and blending the said properties along with joint family properties though it is not permissible under law as the said properties being exclusively purchased by Hemali Bai under a registered Sale Deed dated 15.01.1986. According to the plaintiffs, they have recently come to know about Somla Naik creating such documents by misusing the power of his office and creating documents in respect of suit item No.3 property in his name and in the name of his children and thus, they intends to seek relief of declaration, to declare the alleged right and interest acquired by Somla Naik and his sons on suit item No.3 property by virtue of any deeds created by Somla Naik as null and void and not binding on them. 13. On perusal of entire pleadings of both the sides and evidence recorded so far, it is found that, the plaintiffs herein are seriously making allegations against the father of the defendant No.5 and 6 Somla Naik that he has created documents in respect of suit properties and thereby defrauded them in respect of their right over the suit properties. All along their evidence, the plaintiffs and their witnesses have reiterated such allegations. Thus, it appears that, the facts intended to be introduced by the plaintiffs under the proposed amendment will definitely throw some more light on the real controversy involved between the parties. Having regards to the nature of the suit and allegation made by the plaintiffs, it also appears that, there is necessary for the plaintiffs to seek relief of declaration in respect of alleged documents created by Somla Naik regrading suit item No.3 property. 14. At the same time, allowing proposed amendment will nowhere work any injustice or cause prejudice to the defendants proceedings of the suit are still at the stage of plaintiffs evidence and they opportunities to as the got all the raise their additional plea regarding the proposed amendment and to disprove the case of the plaintiffs as intended to be brought under the proposed amendment. Allowing the amendment will also avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. Whether relief sought under the proposed amendment is time barred or not is subject matter of the trial and hence, proposed amendment cannot be denied on the said ground. According to the plaintiffs, they have come to know about the alleged fraud of Somla Naik recently. There is nothing contrary available on record to disbelieve the said facts and doubt the conduct of the plaintiffs that, they had an opportunity to bring amendment prior to commencement of trial. According to the plaintiffs, they have come to know about the alleged fraud of Somla Naik recently. There is nothing contrary available on record to disbelieve the said facts and doubt the conduct of the plaintiffs that, they had an opportunity to bring amendment prior to commencement of trial. There is no doubt in respect of due diligence of the plaintiffs." 6. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that all rights, contentions, defences etc., available to the plaintiffs including the ground of limitation insofar as the proposed amendment was concerned were kept open by the trial Court while allowing the instant application. In addition thereto, it is relevant to state that, in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu & Another, reported in AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3369, and L.C. Hanumanthappa (Since Dead) by his LRs. Vs. H.B. Shivakumar reported in (2016) 1 SCC 332 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when an amendment is opposed on the ground of limitation, the proper course of action would be to allow the application by directing that the proposed amendment shall not relate back to the date of the suit but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of filing the amendment application and by leaving open the question/issue regarding limitation to be decided along with the other issues, at the time of final disposal of the suit. 7. So also, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another , reported in AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 4256, the Apex Court held that, all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 8. In the instant case, as stated supra, all rights, contentions and defences available to the petitioners/defendants No.4 to 6 including the defence of limitation have been adequately safeguarded/protected by the Trial Court and I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court nor can it be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/defendants No.4 to 6, who would be entitled to file additional Written Statement to the amended plaint and put forth all defences. Consequently in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. Consequently in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P. Natarajan and Another Vs. Muthalammal & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 3443 and (iii) Mohamed Ali Vs. Jaya & Ors. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 477 , I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be said to have occasioned in failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the petition deserves to be disposed of accordingly. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners/defendant Nos.4 to 6 and other defendants to file additional Written Statement to the amended plaint by taking up all defences/ contentions including the defence/contention of limitation. (iii) It is further directed that the amendment as sought for in I.A.No.XVI shall not relate back to the date of the suit, but shall be reckoned/considered from the date of filing the amendment application which was filed on 08.07.2025. (iv) All questions/issues including the issue/question of limitation are hereby kept open to be decided along with the other issues at the time of final disposal of the suit. (v) All rival contentions between the parties on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.