In CR-1981-2023-PUNJ HC- Amendment which is just and proper for adjudication of prayer of suit as raised initially, can be allowed but amendment which changes nature of suit itself is impermissible, holds P&H HC
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi [29-03-2023]

Read Order: RAJ KUMAR V. PARVEEN KUMAR AND OTHERS

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, April 24, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging an order passed by a Gurugram Civil Judge by which, the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for the amendment of the plaint was declined.

A Single -Judge bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi upheld the judgment passed by the Lower Court and opined that the order passed by the lower Court holding that the prayer sought to be included by way of amendment of suit was beyond limitation prescribed for the said prayer to be entertained, could not be faulted with.

Facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition were such that the petitioner -plaintiff claimed that there was an agreement to sell between respondent/ first defendant and the plaintiff for selling the land for an amount of Rs 50 lakh, out of which, Rs 30 lakh was paid to first respondent as the earnest money. As per the plaint, the agreement to sell was to be converted into the sale deed within a period of one year of signing of the agreement to sell. 

According to the petitioner-plaintiff, three months after the execution of the agreement to sell in question, the first respondent executed a release deed in favour of his wife and children i.e respondents’ second to fourth qua the same property. 

Realizing that the first respondent had resiled from the agreement to sell in question, a suit was filed by petitioner on challenging the said release deed of the property in question in favour of defendants’ second to fourth.

 Upon notice of motion, respondent/defendant  i.e the person, who had executed an agreement to sell with the petitioner did not appear but defendants - second to fourth  who were the beneficiary of the release deed denied the execution of the said agreement to sell. The suit was still being tried by the trial Court.

Subsequently, in  the year 2021, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint so as to include his claim for specific performance of the agreement to sell , which application  was declined by the trial Court on the ground that not only the said amendment will change the nature of the suit but even the relief which is being sought in the amendment of the plaint, was  time barred keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint was under challenge in the present civil revision petition.

After considering the submissions of the parties from both the sides, the Court noted that the application seeking amendment of the plaint so as to include the prayer for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell in the suit which was filed challenging the relinquishment deed in favour of defendants, the application for amendment was filed after a period of three years from the date cause of action accrued i.e.  February 19, 2015. 

In view of the same, the Court stated that the order passed by the Court below holding that the prayer sought to be included by way of amendment of suit was  beyond limitation prescribed for the said prayer to be entertained, couldnot be faulted with.

Further, by the amendment sought, the nature of the suit will change and the same is impermissible. “Only the amendment which is just and proper for adjudication of the prayer of the suit as raised initially, can be allowed but the amendment which changes the nature of the suit itself is impermissible”, the Court remarked. 

In the present case, the initial suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff was only to challenge the relinquishment dated May 9, 2014 whereas, the said suit was sought to be changed to be suit with a prayer for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sel. Hence, the Bench held that the impugned order passed by the trial Court that the amendment sought will change the nature of the suit, could be faulted with or needed any intervention by this Court.

Thus, in view of such observations, the petition was dismissed.