Punjab-Haryana High Court
Des Raj vs Sanjeev Kumar on 5 December, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
CR No. 6891 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No. 6891 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: December 5, 2012
Des Raj
...Petitioner
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. KS Jetley, Advocate,
for the respondent.
A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral)
The order dated 5.9.2011 allowing the application for amendment of plaint is under challenge in this petition.
The present amendment has been sought to insert the word "decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 4.11.2003" in place of "decree for mandatory injunction". The respondent had already filed a suit directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement to sale. Now just to remove the technical defect, he wants to insert the words "decree for specific performance of the agreement".
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. V. Alliance Ministries and others AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1768, T.L. Muddukrishna and another v. Smt. Lalitha Ramchandra Rao, AIR 1997 Supreme Court, 772 and Ajendraprasadjin N. Pandey and another Versus Swami Keshavprakeshdasjin N. and another (2006) 12 SCC, 1, in order to CR No. 6891 of 2011 2 contend that amendment which changes the complete nature of the suit and the claim raised, such amendment should not be allowed. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law. But in the case in hand, the nature of the suit or the relief claimed would not be changed. Rather, it would be essential for just decision of the case. The delay would not be an impediment in allowing such amendment.
Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take the plea of limitation before the trial court.
December 5, 2012 (A.N. JINDAL) prem JUDGE