Amrit Raj Singh Sidhu vs Haswinder Singh And Others

290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CR No.7352 of 2026
Date of decision: 02.11.2026

Amrit Raj Singh Sidhu
…Petitioner

Versus

Haswinder Singh and others
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present :- Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit, Advocate
for respondent No.1.

Respondents No.2 and 3 are proforma respondents.

*
MANDEEP PANNU, J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.09.2026
passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, in the
Civil Suit titled ‘ Haswinder Singh versus Amrit Raj Singh and others’ ,
whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151
CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-plaintiff
instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, seeking to
restrain petitioner-defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property and to
direct petitioner-defendant No.1 to get the suit property redeemed. While
NEETU RANI
2026.11.03 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CR No.7352 of 2026 -2-

the suit was pending at the stage of the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff,
the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read
with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.
3. By way of the aforesaid application, the respondent-plaintiff
sought to amend the plaint by incorporating a prayer for specific
performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.11.2017, executed by
petitioner-defendant No.1 in his favour, in respect of five acres of land,
and, in the alternative, for recovery of ₹60,00,000/- paid under the said
agreement, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date
of payment till realization.
4. The respondent-plaintiff averred that, at the time of institution
of the suit, he apprehended that petitioner-defendant No.1 might alienate
the suit property in connivance with defendants Nos.2 and 3. He further
asserted that he subsequently came to know that the mortgage over the suit
property had allegedly been created by petitioner-defendant No.1 in
connivance with defendants Nos.2 and 3 to avoid performing his
obligations under the agreement to sell and to frustrate the transaction. The
respondent-plaintiff also sought to amend the pleadings regarding the cause
of action and to incorporate consequential amendments in the prayer
clause. It was pleaded that the proposed amendments were necessary for
proper adjudication of the dispute and would not change the nature of the
suit, and would not cause prejudice to the defendants, particularly as the
suit was still at an initial stage.
5. The defendants filed a reply opposing the application,
NEETU RANI
2026.11.03 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CR No.7352 of 2026 -3-

contending that the same was belated, misconceived and intended to delay
the proceedings. It was submitted that the respondent-plaintiff had
knowledge of the relevant facts before institution of the suit and had failed
to exercise due diligence. The defendants further contended that the
proposed amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the suit by
converting it into one for specific performance and recovery of money,
introduce a time-barred claim, and cause prejudice to the defendants.
6. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib after
hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering their respective
submissions, allowed the application for amendment of the plaint. It was
observed that the agreement to sell dated 24.11.2017 did not stipulate any
fixed date for execution of the sale deed and that the obligation to redeem
the mortgage was a condition precedent to the execution thereof. Since the
mortgage had not been redeemed, the cause of action for seeking specific
performance had not accrued when the original suit was instituted. The
Court further held that the reliefs sought in the original suit and those
proposed to be incorporated arose from distinct causes of action and that
the proposed amendment was neither barred by limitation nor hit by Order
II Rule 2 CPC. Accordingly, the application was allowed, subject to filing
of the amended plaint and payment of requisite court fee.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner/
defendant has preferred the present revision petition, assailing the legality
and correctness thereof.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned trial
NEETU RANI
2026.11.03 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CR No.7352 of 2026 -4-

Court has failed to appreciate that the proposed relief of specific
performance is ex-facie barred by limitation. It is submitted that the
respondent-plaintiff had notice of the alleged refusal to perform the
agreement to sell upon the filing of the written statement dated 22.11.2021,
wherein the execution of the agreement was denied. Consequently, the
application for amendment, having been filed beyond the period of three
years prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, could not have
been allowed. It is further contended that the proposed amendment
introduces a distinct cause of action and substantially alters the nature of
the suit. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in T.L. Muddu Krishana v. Smt. Lalitha Ramchandra
Rao, 1997 (2) RCR (Civil) 154 , to contend that an amendment introducing
a claim for specific performance after expiry of the prescribed period of
limitation cannot be permitted.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
contends that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or
material irregularity warranting interference in the present revision petition.
It is submitted that the agreement to sell dated 24.11.2017 did not stipulate
any fixed date for execution and registration of the sale deed, as the same
was to take place at the wish of the respondent-plaintiff, subject to
redemption of the mortgage by the petitioner-defendant. The redemption of
the mortgage was a condition precedent to the performance of the
agreement, which admittedly remained unfulfilled. It is further contended
that the question of limitation, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
NEETU RANI
2026.11.03 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CR No.7352 of 2026 -5-

cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of considering the
application for amendment and would require adjudication upon the
pleadings and evidence of the parties. The judgment relied upon by the
petitioner is distinguishable, as the agreement in that case stipulated a
definite date for performance. It is, accordingly, prayed that the revision
petition be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the impugned order and the relevant record.
11. The controversy in the present revision petition is confined to
the question whether learned trial Court has committed any jurisdictional
error or material irregularity in allowing the application for amendment of
the plaint so as to warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court.
12. The principles governing amendment of pleadings under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC are well settled. An amendment necessary for
determining the real questions in controversy between the parties may
ordinarily be permitted provided it does not cause injustice to the opposite
party which cannot be adequately compensated by costs or appropriate
procedural safeguards. The fact that an amendment introduces an additional
relief or changes the nature of the suit is a relevant consideration, but is not,
by itself, an absolute bar to its allowance.
13. The principal objection raised by the petitioner concerns
limitation. Article 54 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of three
years for a suit for specific performance, commencing either from the date
NEETU RANI
2026.11.03 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CR No.7352 of 2026 -6-

fixed for performance or, where no such date is fixed, from the date when
the respondent-plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. In T.L.
Muddu Krishana (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the
agreement fixes a date for performance, limitation commences from that
date, irrespective of whether time is of the essence of the contract. The
Court further held that a claim for specific performance introduced by
amendment after expiry of the prescribed period could not be permitted in
the facts of that case.
14. The aforesaid judgment, however, has to be considered in the
context of the terms of the agreement and the facts obtaining in the present
case. As noticed by learned trial Court, the agreement dated 24.11.2017 did
not stipulate a fixed calendar date for execution and registration of the sale
deed. The performance of the agreement was contingent upon redemption
of the mortgage, which was to be undertaken by the petitioner-defendant.
Learned trial Court has observed that the said condition remained
unfulfilled and the cause of action for seeking specific performance was
distinct from the cause of action on which the original suit for injunction
had been instituted.
15. In these circumstances, the question as to when the
respondent-plaintiff acquired notice of refusal to perform the agreement,
and consequently when limitation commenced under the second limb of
Article 54, requires consideration in the light of the contractual terms and
the relevant pleadings. The denial of the agreement in the written statement
is a circumstance relevant to such determination; however, its legal effect,
particularly in the context of the condition relating to redemption of the
NEETU RANI
2026.11.03 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CR No.7352 of 2026 -7-

mortgage, cannot be conclusively determined merely on the basis of the
application for amendment.
16. The allowance of the amendment does not, in itself, amount to
a final adjudication that the claim for specific performance is within
limitation or that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible objections,
including the objection of limitation, in the amended pleadings and at the
appropriate stage of the proceedings. Learned trial Court shall adjudicate
upon such objections in accordance with law, on the basis of the pleadings
and evidence led by the parties, without being influenced by any
observation made herein.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity in the impugned
order warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
18. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed . The
impugned order allowing the application for amendment of the plaint is
upheld, subject to the aforesaid observations.
19. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the proposed claim for specific
performance or on the question of limitation, which shall remain open for
adjudication by learned trial Court in accordance with law.
20. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU)
02.11.2026 JUDGE
neetu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
NEETU RANI
2026.11.03 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD