Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Ahuja vs Ravinder Kaur on 13 September, 2013
Author: L.N.Mittal
Bench: L.N.Mittal
CR No.3496 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.3496 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : September 13, 2013.
Sandeep Ahuja
...... Petitioner
Versus
Ravinder Kaur
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL
Present : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate
for Mr. B.C.Bitta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the respondent.
L.N.MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Plaintiff Sandeep Ahuja, being aggrieved by order dated 5.04.2012 passed by the trial Court thereby dismissing application Annexure P-2 filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the aforesaid order.
Case of the plaintiff is that defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on 21.03.2008 for ` 28,00,000/- and received ` 1,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff by executing written receipt. It was settled that the plaintiff would pay further amount of ` 6,00,000/- as earnest money on or before 25.03.2008 and written agreement shall be executed on 25.03.2008. Date for execution of the sale deed was fixed to be 9.09.2008. The plaintiff offered ` 6,00,000/- Manoj Kumar 2013.09.17 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3496 of 2012 2 to the defendant on 25.03.2008, but the defendant refused to receive the same and to execute written agreement. Plaintiff in the suit has sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant to execute sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.
By amendment of plaint, the plaintiff sought to seek the relief of possession of the suit land by specific performance of the agreement because defendant had raised objection regarding bar of the suit Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act.
Defendant-respondent Ravinder Kaur by filing reply Annexure-P3 opposed the amendment application and controverted the averments made therein. It was also pleaded that relief of specific performance of the agreement sought to be claimed by amendment of plaint is time barred and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed.
Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 5.04.2012 dismissed the application Annexure-P2 filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file very carefully.
Counsel for plaintiff-petitioner contended that proposed amendment of plaint should be allowed because the trial Court has dismissed the amendment application on the erroneous ground that the agreement in question has not been placed on record, although, in fact there was no written agreement between the parties.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that suit to claim relief of specific performance of the agreement had become barred by limitation when amendment application dated Manoj Kumar 2013.09.17 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3496 of 2012 3 3.10.2011 Annexure-P2 was filed and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on three judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court "T.L.Muddukrishana and another Vs. Smt. Lalitha Ramchandra Rao 1997 (1) Apex Court Journal 185 (S.C.), Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and others 2012 (2) Apex Court Judgments 071 (S.C.) and Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others 2010 (1) Civil Court Cases 001 (S.C.)".
I have carefully considered the matter. It is correct that according to plaintiff's version, there was oral agreement to sell between the parties coupled with receipt dated 21.03.2008 and therefore, question of placing on record the written agreement did not arise. However, according to the plaintiff's own version, target date for execution of sale deed was 9.09.2008. Consequently, suit for specific performance of the agreement could be filed within three years thereof, i.e. up to 9.09.2011. However, amendment application Annexure-P2 to seek relief of specific performance was filed on 3.10.2011 i.e. after expiry of limitation period to claim the relief of specific performance of the agreement. In view thereof, the proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed because relief sought to be claimed by amendment had become barred by limitation. In the cases of Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra) and Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others (supra), it has been laid down that amendment of plaint should be declined if fresh suit to claim the relief (sought to be claimed by amendment) would be barred by limitation on the date of filing the amendment application. In the Manoj Kumar 2013.09.17 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3496 of 2012 4 instant case, fresh suit to claim relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell had become time barred on 3.10.2011 the date of the amendment application. Consequently proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed. Judgment in the case of T.L.Muddukrishana and another Vs. Smt. Lalitha Ramchandra Rao (supra) is more directly applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In that case also, plaintiff had initially sought relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to comply with the impugned agreement. By amendment of plaint, the plaintiff wanted to seek relief of specific performance. However, on the date of filing amendment application, relief of specific performance had become barred by limitation. Consequently, it was held that amendment of plaint to seek the said relief could not be granted. Identical is the position in the case in hand. Consequently amendment of plaint sought by the plaintiff-petitioner cannot be allowed, although for reasons different than those recorded by the trial Court.
Resultantly, I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.
Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, is disposed of as infructuous.
September 13, 2013 (L.N.Mittal)
Manoj Bhutani Judge
Manoj Kumar
2013.09.17 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document