ORDER
S. Ashok Kumar, J.
1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 194 of 1998 filed by him for bare permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants.
2. The case in brief is as follows:
Pending suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application in the suit in I.A. No. 396 of 2002 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, to amend the prayer portion, stating that on 05.02.1998 at 06.00 am., when the petitioner/plaintiff was standing at Hasthampatti Bus stop to proceed to Yercaud, respondents 1 and 2 along with three known persons came in a car and auto and assaulted him at the back and he became unconscious. At 7.45 p.m., on the same day, when he became conscious, he found himself travelling along with respondents 1 and 2 and three others. The first respondent stopped car and threw the plaintiff out of car, stating that the properties of the petitioner have been registered and if he utters the same, they would close him and his family. The petitioner was not aware of the properties which were said to be registered on that day. The sale deeds alleged to have been registered on 05.02.1998 would not bind the petitioner/plaintiff sine they are not supported by any consideration and they were obtained while the petitioner was in a unconscious condition. Hence, he prays for amendment of the prayer portion, after the word permanent injunction as, “to pass a decree for cancellation of the three sale deeds dated 05.02.1998 registered as document Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of 1998 before the Sub Registrar, Yercaud, as null and void and consequentially direct defendants 4 and 5 to make suitable entries in their registers and records to this effect. On the other hand, respondents 1 to 3 filed counter-affidavit contending that the petition itself barred by limitation and the time barred relief cannot be included in the pending suit for bare injunction by amendment. The petitioner/plaintiff having stated in paragraph v of the plaint that the alleged sale deed or documents in respect of the suit properties in favour of defendants 1 to 3 or their men is invalid, void and not binding on the plaintiff, is estopped from taking a contrary stand and hence, the interlocutory application is liable to be dismissed. After hearing both sides, the Court below has dismissed the interlocutory application on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had knowledge about the sale deed within a period of three years, and there is no necessity for fling this application to amend the plaint as one for settling aside the sale deeds and the amendment sought for is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come forward with the present civil revision petition.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application would contend that the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. He would further contend that as per the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a prayer to set aside invalid document is necessary even though the document is not binding or void and rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002 (4) CTC 189 (Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr.).
5. Learned Counsel appearing appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would reiterate the contentions raised in the counter affidavit of the respondents and rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court (T.N.Alloy Foundry Co.Ltd. v. T.N.Electricity Board and Ors.) wherein it is stated as follows:
…The law as regard permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled in L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co. , it was held that the Court as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the Court to order it.
…We find that the discretion exercise by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law.
6. He would further rely upon another decision of our High Court reported in 2005 1 Law Weekly, 612 (Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Dowel Erectors) wherein paragraph 11 reads as under:
Order VII Rule 6 directs the plaintiff, where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by law of limitation, to show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed. Here as seen from the plaint, no exemption is claimed, whereas as a matter of right, it is claimed by the plaintiff, that the suit is within time from the date of acknowledgment of laibility by the defendant viz., 5.12.1980, 29.1.1981 and 5.8.1981. The alleged acknowldgments dated 5.2.1980 and 29.1.1981 also may save the limitation, since the suit was not filed within three years from the said dates and if at all, there was an acknowledgment on 5.8.1981, by the defendant, that alone could save the limitation. Therefore, it should be seen, in this case, whether the letter dated 5.8.1991 could be treated as an acknowledgment of liability by the defendant, so as to bring the suit claim within the time, since the suit has been filed on 31.3.1984.
7. He would rely on yet another decision of our High Court (S.Kuppusamy v. P.K.Subramani and Ors. which reads as follows:
The main objection of the revision petition is that the powers conferred under Order 6, Rule 17 seeking to amend the plaint cannot be resorted to annul the available right of limitation accrued on the revision petitioner/defendant in the suit. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in K.Raheja Constructions Ltd. v. Alliance Ministries and Ors., 1995 TNLJ 77 SC wherein it is held thus,
…. Having allowed the period of seven years elapsed from the date of filing of the suit, and the period of limitation being three years under Article 54 of the schedule to the Limitation Act,1963, any amendment on the grounds set out, would defeat the valuable right of limitation accrued to the respondent.
Even though the power conferred under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised t avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, applying the ration laid down by the Apex Court in 1995 TLNJ 77 (SC) (cited supra), such power cannot be indiscriminately exercised to extend the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, upon hearing the arguments of the parties and on a perusal of the order of the Court below, it could be seen that the suit was filed on 17.02.1998, the written statement was filed on 17.06.2001 and the amendment petition was filed only on 02.07.2001. Further, placing reliance on the decisions relied on by learned Counsel for the respondents cited supra, I do not find any merits in the case of the petitioner and there is no reason or ground to interfere with the order of the Court below.
9. For the above said circumstances, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No. 1121/2004 is also dismissed.