ORDER
Mohammed Anwar, J.
1. This revision by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1099 of 1992 is filed questioning the Trial Court’s order dated 24-9-1998 by which his application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected. By that application he sought amendment of plaint to incorporate the additional relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 9-7-1981 executed by R-1 (D-1) in favour of R-4 (D-4) with respect to suit property does not bind plaintiff’s share therein.
2. The said O.S. No. 1098 of 1992 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in October 1992 for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property which was the subject-matter of the registered sale deed dated 9-7-1981. That sale deed was executed by respondent 1 (defendant 1) in favour of respondent 4 (defendant 4). Respondent 1 is none else than the father of petitioner-plaintiff. The fact of sale of the suit property by him (respondent 1) to respondent 4 was well-within the knowledge of plaintiff even prior to the institution of the suit by him in the year 1992. It was on 24-2-1997 he filed the said Interlocutory Application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC in the Trial Court i.e., about 16 years of the execution of the said sale dated 9-7-1981 and about 5 years after filing of his suit. No good ground is made out for condonation of this delay in his application. Therefore that application has been rejected by the Trial Court by its order impugned herein.
3. Learned Counsel for petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in M. Krishnappa v The Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District and argued that the said delay in making of plaintiff’s application is immaterial because the proposed additional relief sought to be incorporated in the plaint was based on the material facts which were already averred in the plaint.
4. On the other hand learned Counsel for respondent contend that the Court below was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order inasmuch as a valuable right under the sale deed in question had accrued to the purchaser defendant, that he has taken effective defence plea in the suit on the basis of the said sale deed and that the said right could not be taken away from him by allowing the proposed amendment of the plaint. He relied on a decision of this Court in Karnataka Electricity Board and Others v M/s. Oriental Timber Industries and on a decision of the Supreme Court in Muni Lal v The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited and Another. I find sufficient legal force in this contention of learned Counsel for respondents.
5. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. Hence the revision is dismissed.
