Rectification of property description in specific performance suits is permissible at any stage through amendment.

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on an Agreement to Sell and GPA dated January 5, 2016, for property measuring 8 Bighas and 32 Biswas

The plaintiff alleged he paid a total consideration of Rs. 4.5 Crores, but Defendant No. 1 (D-1) failed to execute the Sale Deed and instead transferred the land to third parties (D-2, then D-3, then D-4)

During the proceedings, the plaintiff realized D-1 never owned the specific Killa numbers mentioned in the original agreement due to mutual mistake/misrepresentation

Consequently, the plaintiff moved I.A. 2697/2026 to bring on record a 2025 Settlement Agreement with D-1’s legal heir (Amit Bagga) acknowledging the correct description

and I.A. 39889/2024 to amend the plaint and Agreement to Sell under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act (SRA) to reflect the correct property identifiers and challenge subsequent sale deeds

D-4 opposed the amendments, alleging collusion and claiming they were barred by limitation

1. Whether the court should allow the placement of a subsequent Settlement Agreement on record as an additional document under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC.

2. Whether a plaintiff can amend a suit for specific performance to include a prayer for rectification of the underlying Agreement to Sell under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act.

3. Whether the proposed amendments regarding property description are barred by limitation or change the fundamental nature of the suit.

Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC, which grants the court discretion to receive documents not filed with the plaint upon showing sufficient cause

Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which mandates a liberal approach to amendments necessary for determining the real controversy, especially at the pre-trial stage

Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows for the rectification of instruments in cases of fraud or mutual mistake and specifically provides via its Proviso to sub-section (4) that the court shall allow such amendments at any stage of the proceeding

Puran Ram v. Bhaguram, establishing that rectification of a property description does not change the nature of the suit and relates back to the filing date for limitation purposes

Regarding the additional document, the court found the Settlement Agreement was executed in 2025, thus the plaintiff could not have possessed it in 2018; procedural rules should not prejudice a party's right to present their case, leaving the question of "collusion" for trial

Regarding the amendment, the court observed that D-1 only owned 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas in the area, rendering the original description a "clerical error" or "mutual mistake," as one cannot intend to sell what they do not own

Applying the Proviso to Section 26(4) of the SRA, the court noted it has no choice but to allow amendments for rectification if they facilitate expressing the parties' real intention

Per Puran Ram, the court rejected D-4's limitation argument, holding that such corrections are formal and relate back to the original institution of the suit

Since the trial had not commenced, no irreparable prejudice was caused to defendants, who retain the right to file amended written statements

It allowed the amendment of the plaint to include the correct property description, the prayer for rectification of the Agreement to Sell, and the challenge to subsequent Sale Deeds, finding these necessary to resolve the real controversy

The amendment for the alternative relief of refund was noted as withdrawn. The court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the plaintiff for the delay and directed the filing of the amended plaint within two weeks