Civil Revision No. 6618 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6618 of 2011 Date of decision. 01.11.2011 Vinay Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Gurdeep Singh and ors. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Vinay Kumar, plaintiff has brought this revision petition through his special attorney Deepak Arora under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. The suit brought by the petitioner is for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17.01.2004 with regard to land measuring 23 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Lakhowal Kalan, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. After having failed to get relief in his application for amendment of the plaint whereby he prayed for changing the date of the agreement from 17.01.2004 to 17.01.2005, the plaintiff has now sought Civil Revision No. 6618 of 2011 --2-- to amend the plaint for adding the relief of declaration to the effect that the agreement of sale in question is dated 17.01.2005 and not 17.01.2004 and that the date of agreement is liable to be rectified since it crept in due to unintentional typographical error. The application was opposed by the defendants mentioning that earlier also the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of plaint to alter the date of the agreement from 17.01.2004 to 17.01.2005, which was declined by the court on 12.03.2007. Claiming the application to have no merit, the same was prayed to be dismissed. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court found no merit in the application and dismissed the same vide the impugned order. I have heard Shri Mansur Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date has been wrongly mentioned in the agreement. According to him, the date on the stamp of the stamp vendor at the back of the stamp paper of the same is 17.01.2005 and the date of scribing the document in the register of the scribe, a photocopy of which is Ex.P-6 is also 17.01.2005. According to him, these facts make it clear that the document was written on 17.01.2005 and not on 17.01.2004. He has submitted that dismissal of his earlier application would not bar his subsequent application. According to him, principle of res-judicata would not stand attracted to the application in hand. He has submitted that the suit was Civil Revision No. 6618 of 2011 --3-- filed by the plaintiff within limitation and, therefore, the application for amendment could not be declined on the ground of limitation also. In the earlier application, the petitioner had sought amendment of the plaint by just changing the date of the agreement from 17.1.2004 to 17.01.2005. Having failed to secure a favourable order therein, the plaintiff has filed this application, whereby he has sought to add a relief of declaration to the effect that the agreement of sale is dated 17.01.2005 and not dated 17.01.2004 and that the said date is liable to be rectified since it crept in due to unintentional typographical error. The relief sought now cannot be said to be significantly different from the relief sought in the previous application. When the earlier application was dismissed and that order was not challenged, this application could not lie. The issue is, however, required to be examined from another angle. The suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 17.01.2004 or 17.01.2005 had been brought in the year 2006, well within limitation. However, the relief of rectification of the document i.e. agreement of sale has been sought to be added on 01.12.2009. If the suit for this relief is taken to have been brought on 01.12.2009, it would be barred by limitation, which is three years for obtaining such declaration. An amendment by way of adding a relief cannot be allowed after the period of limitation for the same has expired and for this reason also, amendment could not be allowed. Civil Revision No. 6618 of 2011 --4-- For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the revision petition and consequently dismiss the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 01.11.2011 dinesh