In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Vs. Suresh Pal Sharma - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1065238
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-10-2012
AppellantIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
RespondentSuresh Pal Sharma
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil revision no.2912 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision:10. 12.2012 matu ram ..petitioner versus suresh pal sharma ..respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice a.n.jindal present : mr.r.p.rana, advocate for the petitioner. mr.yowan sharma, advocate for the respondent. a.n.jindal, j. (oral) challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.4.2012 (annexure p-1) passed by the trial court allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. initially, the plaintiff had an agreement to sell dated 9.1.2009 in his favour which stipulated the date of sale as 31.3.2009. however, feeling apprehension that the property would to be transferred to any other person, he filed a suit for permanent injunction on 25.09.2009. however on 4.8.2010, he, through an application, sought amendment of the plaint for converting the suit into specific performance. the said amendment being within time was allowed. it is settled by not that an application, if filed even not within time to amend the suit for permanent injunction to convert it into that of specific performance, can be allowed and the plea of limitation could be raised later and decided on merits. since both the reliefs being claimed on the same set of facts, do not prejudice the rights of the defendants. similar view was taken by the allahabad high court in case m/s allahabad law journal co.ltd.versus m/s skyways constructions corporation and others”. wherein it was observed as under:- “the counsel for defendants no.1 to 3 has argued that the civil revision no.2912 of 2012 (o&m) [2].relief sought by way of amendment of the plaint stands time barred in view of art. 54 of the limitation act. it is not necessary to express any view with regard to such a relief being time barred by limitation at this stage because the additional relief is being sought on the same facts as stands pleaded in the original plaint. the plea has been already taken by the defendants no.1 to 3 that the suit itself is barred by time.”8. in my view, the plaintiff cannot permitted to pray for the additional relief flowing from the same cause of action and facts mentioned in the plaint even at this stage as the same is not going to cause any hardship or injustice to the defendants but i make it clear that said amendment of plaint would be subject to the plea of the defendants that relief regarding specific performance of agreement for sale stands barred by limitation. this question will be decided at the final stage of the suit. the plaintiff has moved this application belatedly, so plaintiff must pay cost for seeking this amendment. i do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner that the said amendment would change the complete structure of the case because the suit for permanent injunction is filed on perception of the threat, whereas when the plaintiff had still time to file the suit for specific performance then he could file it later or get the earlier suit amended. since the amendment sought for would not change the nature of the relief but it would be an addition of the relief claimed; it is on same set of facts and amendment sought for would avoid multiplicity of litigation and save the valuable time of the court. therefore, such amendment can be allowed. it is not the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff has not instituted a suit for specific performance and filed the suit only for recovery. therefore, it cannot be said that the relief sought for is an afterthought or altogether different. no merits. dismissed. ( a.n.jindal) 10.12.2012 judge sd
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2912 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:

10. 12.2012 Matu Ram ..Petitioner Versus Suresh Pal Sharma ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present : Mr.R.P.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Yowan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

A.N.Jindal, J.

(Oral) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.4.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.

Initially, the plaintiff had an agreement to sell dated 9.1.2009 in his favour which stipulated the date of sale as 31.3.2009.

However, feeling apprehension that the property would to be transferred to any other person, he filed a suit for permanent injunction on 25.09.2009.

However on 4.8.2010, he, through an application, sought amendment of the plaint for converting the suit into specific performance.

The said amendment being within time was allowed.

It is settled by not that an application, if filed even not within time to amend the suit for permanent injunction to convert it into that of specific performance, can be allowed and the plea of limitation could be raised later and decided on merits.

Since both the reliefs being claimed on the same set of facts, do not prejudice the rights of the defendants.

Similar view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in case M/s Allahabad Law Journal Co.LTD.versus M/s Skyways Constructions Corporation and others”.

wherein it was observed as under:- “The counsel for defendants No.1 to 3 has argued that the Civil Revision No.2912 of 2012 (O&M) [2].relief sought by way of amendment of the plaint stands time barred in view of Art.

54 of the Limitation Act.

It is not necessary to express any view with regard to such a relief being time barred by limitation at this stage because the additional relief is being sought on the same facts as stands pleaded in the original plaint.

The plea has been already taken by the defendants No.1 to 3 that the suit itself is barred by time.”

8. In my view, the plaintiff cannot permitted to pray for the additional relief flowing from the same cause of action and facts mentioned in the plaint even at this stage as the same is not going to cause any hardship or injustice to the defendants but I make it clear that said amendment of plaint would be subject to the plea of the defendants that relief regarding specific performance of agreement for sale stands barred by limitation.

This question will be decided at the final stage of the suit.

The plaintiff has moved this application belatedly, so plaintiff must pay cost for seeking this amendment.

I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner that the said amendment would change the complete structure of the case because the suit for permanent injunction is filed on perception of the threat, whereas when the plaintiff had still time to file the suit for specific performance then he could file it later or get the earlier suit amended.

Since the amendment sought for would not change the nature of the relief but it would be an addition of the relief claimed; it is on same set of facts and amendment sought for would avoid multiplicity of litigation and save the valuable time of the Court.

Therefore, such amendment can be allowed.

It is not the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff has not instituted a suit for specific performance and filed the suit only for recovery.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the relief sought for is an afterthought or altogether different.

No merits.

Dismissed.

( A.N.Jindal) 10.12.2012 Judge sd