Civil Revision No.1642/2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1642/2011 Date of decision: 09.3.2011. Om Sarup and another .............Petitioners v Smt Dayawati and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.O.P. Sharma,Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh,J By filing the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiffs-petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.2.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad whereby their application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. Plaintiffs-petitioners filed a civil suit No.783 dated 20.10.2004 for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application dated 2.2.2011 (P.4) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners with the proposed amendment in the prayer clause of the plaint. Upon notice, defendants-respondent Nos.5 to 7 and 10 filed reply dated 5.2.2011 (P.5) opposing the same whereas rest of the defendants-respondents raised no objection. After hearing Civil Revision No.1642/2011 #2# both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the application, hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file. Learned counsel contends that the learned trial Court has grossly erred while dismissing the application and declining the amendment of the plaint as the law is well settled that the approach of the courts should be liberal while considering the application for amendment of the pleadings particularly when it is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and no prejudice is caused to the opposite side. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the proposed amendment as sought in the prayer clause after the words “above” and prior to the words “and” occurring in 16th line of paragraph 16, which is reproduced hereunder: “and the defendants No.1 to 4 be also directed to execute the Sale Deed as per agreement dated 11.5.2004 in favour of the plaintiffs.” A perusal of the aforesaid proposed amendment reveals that the plaintiff-petitioners are trying to convert their suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction into a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 11.5.2004 after a period of almost seven years, which is not even permissible in view of the law of limitation particularly when the case is at the final stage of trial and that too without any intention of affixing the requisite court fee. Civil Revision No.1642/2011 #3# Undisputedly, from the perusal of paragraph No.14 of the plaint dated 19.10.2004 (P.1), it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs-petitioners themselves have pleaded that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is assessed as Rs.200/- over which a court fee of Rs.25/- has been affixed over the plaint but as admitted by the plaintiffs themselves, the amount of sale consideration involved in the alleged agreement dated 11.5.2004 is Rs.1,87,000/-. There is no plausible explanation given by the plaintiffs- petitioners to show that they have exercised any diligence much less to say the due diligence to seek the proposed amendment at such a belated stage despite their being fully aware of the consequences of such a deliberate lapse on their part. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed here-in-above specially in view of the fact that in case the contention of the petitioners is accepted that will change the entire nature of the suit and give a liverage to the plaintiffs-petitioners to come up with a altogether new case, which is otherwise not permissible in law being barred by limitation, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 15.2.2011 (P.1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 09.3.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge Civil Revision No.1642/2011 #4#