Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babu Ram Saini And Others vs Rama Krishna Buildwel Pvt. Ltd on 24 September, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 399 of 2012
Date of Decision: 24.09.2013
Babu Ram Saini and others ... Petitioners
Versus
Rama Krishna Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
for the respondent.
*****
L.N. MITTAL , J (ORAL)
Defendants by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have assailed order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial Court thereby allowing application (Annexure P-3) filed by respondent-plaintiff for amendment of plaint subject to payment of `3000/- as costs.
Plaintiff filed suit based on agreement dated 23.03.2006 and supplementary agreement dated 14.07.2006, but in the original plaint (Annexure P-1), the plaintiff did not claim the relief of specific performance of the agreements.
In amendment application (Annexure P-3), the plaintiff alleged that there was dispute regarding balance sale price to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of sale deed and also regarding liability of defendants to get the land identified, demarcated and measured within a week of the execution of the agreements and, Vandana 2013.09.27 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R. No. 399 of 2012 -2- accordingly, prayer in the suit was made regarding said relief. However, in fact, the suit was for specific performance of the agreements on payment of balance sale consideration. Accordingly, relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.07.2006 was sought to be added by amendment of plaint.
Defendants by filing reply (Annexure P-4) opposed the amendment application and controverted the averments made therein. It was also pleaded that relief of specific performance of the agreement had since become barred by limitation.
Learned trial Court vide impugned order (Annexure P-
5) has allowed application (Annexure P-3) filed by plaintiff for amendment of plaint on payment of ` 3000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this revision petition to challenge the aforesaid order.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed as relief of specific performance of the agreement had become barred by limitation when amendment application dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-3) was filed.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-plaintiff relying on judgment of Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman and another Vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others 2012 (5) R.A.J. 181 contended that all necessary facts have already been pleaded in the original plaint and only relief of specific performance of the agreement is to be added by amendment and, therefore, Vandana 2013.09.27 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R. No. 399 of 2012 -3- proposed amendment of plaint has been rightly allowed by the trial Court.
I have carefully considered the matter. According to impugned agreements, sale deed was to be executed up to 20.05.2007. The suit was filed by the plaintiff thereafter on 24.10.2007. Consequently, at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was entitled to claim the relief of specific performance of the agreements, but did not claim the same with mala fide intention so as to avoid payment of huge amount of Court fee exceeding ` 35 lacs. Even if there was dispute regarding balance sale price and even if the defendants had to carry out demarcation etc. and had not done the same, even then the plaintiff in the original plaint itself could have claimed the relief of specific performance of the impugned agreements. Even by amendment of plaint, the plaintiff is seeking the said relief while dispute regarding balance sale price and regarding liability of defendants for demarcation etc. has not yet been resolved. Consequently, nothing prevented the plaintiff from seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreements in the original plaint itself. The plaintiff acted with mala fide intention to avoid payment of huge amount of Court fee. On account of said mala fide conduct also, the plaintiff is disentitled to seek amendment of plaint to claim relief of specific performance of the agreement.
In addition to the aforesaid, when amendment application was filed by the plaintiff, its claim for specific performance of the agreements had become barred by limitation. Limitation period for claiming the said relief had expired on Vandana 2013.09.27 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R. No. 399 of 2012 -4- 20.05.2010 i.e. almost sixteen months before the amendment application was filed. For this reason, proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed. Judgment in the case of Abdul Rehman (supra) also goes against the plaintiff on this aspect. In the said judgment, it was not laid down that time barred relief can be allowed to be added by amendment of plaint. On the contrary, it was observed that plea that relief sought by amendment was barred by limitation is to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the question of permitting amendment of plaint to claim time barred relief does not arise.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed.
Resultantly, I find that impugned order of the trial Court permitting amendment of plaint is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial Court is set aside. Application (Annexure P-3) filed by respondent-plaintiff for amendment of plaint stands dismissed.
24.09.2013 (L.N.MITTAL)
vandana JUDGE
Vandana
2013.09.27 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document