Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint of the instant suit No.835 of 1988 seeking to incorporate relief of specific performance of the sale agreement. The trial court rejected the amendment application by order dated 11.7.2013 holding that the relief for specific performance has since become barred by limitation and thus, such an amendment could not be allowed. Revision preferred against the said order has also been dismissed by District Judge, Agra by order dated 29.4.2015. The aforesaid orders are subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

7. On the other hand, Sri Naveen Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondents submitted that the amendment sought was, on the face of it, barred by limitation and as such, the amendment was rightly refused. It is urged that an amendment which seeks to take away accrued right of a party, as in the instant case, where even a fresh suit seeking relief for specific performance was held to be barred by limitation, the trial court was fully justified in declining to grant amendment seeking relief of specific performance.

22. There are cases where it is clear from the pleadings or the material on record, without any scope for further inquiry, that the amendment sought is barred by law of limitation. Such amendments are generally declined, as allowing the same would be an empty formality and may unnecessary result in delay of the proceedings.

23. In K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. Vs. Alliance Ministries7 the facts were akin to that of the case in hand. A suit for permanent injunction was filed restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property on the ground that the defendants had entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff and during its subsistence they cannot enter into a sale in favour of a third party. Subsequently, an application seeking amendment in the plaint was moved. Thereby, the plaintiffs prayed for grant of relief of specific performance. In the application, it was averred that they subsequently discovered that the Charity Commissioner had granted permission for sale of the trust property and, therefore, the plaintiffs are also entitled to the relief of specific performance. The application seeking amendment was rejected by the trial court and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the relief for specific performance became barred by limitation and thus, was rightly not allowed. The plea that earlier the plaintiffs could not have prayed for relief of specific performance, as the sale was dependent on grant of permission by Charity Commissioner, was repelled by holding as under:-

33. In T.L. Muddukrishana and another Vs. Lalitha Ramchandra Rao10 under an agreement dated 16.3.1989, the execution of sale deed was dependent on obtaining clearance from Ceiling authorities and Income Tax Department. The appellant issued notice on 2.10.1989 to the respondent to comply with the terms of the agreement by obtaining necessary clearances. The respondent instead of obtaining the clearance, by reply dated 6.11.1989 repudiated the contract. The appellant brought a suit for mandatory injunction to compel the respondent to comply with the terms of the agreement without seeking relief of specific performance. Later he filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint to add relief of specific performance. The amendment application filed in that regard on 5.11.1992 was rejected by the trial court holding that the relief of specific performance has since become barred by time. The Supreme court upheld the rejection of the amendment application by observing as under:-