Of O^ip u.e disputed p.pe.„ recove, of vacant possession of it stating that he had recentiy conxe to itnow that the 2«. defendant ploughed the land and thus, the plaintiff lost possession • over the suit proper.. The defendant resisted the petition stating lha, the petition was intentionally filed belatedly, though the written statement was filed about four years back and that if the amendment is allowed, it would change the cause of action and further that the relief of declaration of Utle is barred by limitation of three years as the suit was filed in the year 2010. However, the trail Court allowed the petition. The High Court allowed the amendment following the decision Of the Supreme Court in Pankala Vs VeUappas. wherein in a . ■ suit for perm^ent injunction, amendment for the relief of declaration was allowed holding that the question of limitation can be gone inh. in the mam suit and referring to the decision of the this High Court in M.Chokka Rao Vs Sa«„ Sattamm.,, with regard to the proposition that when the suit is not for a simple declaration, • but is for a declaration coupled with further relief, the limitation is 12 years'-and not 3 years. It was further held that an amendment can not be rejected on mere gmund of delay, however long it may be. by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Srmrpath Kurrrar Vs
