C.R. No. 6060 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6060 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: February 12 ,2009 Surinder Kaur .. Petitioner v. Kehar Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the order dated 22.8.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages with interest with the allegations that the property, which was sold by the respondents- defendants to the petitioner-plaintiff, was found to be of defective title and the same was taken by a third party in execution of a court decree. In the alternative, damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- were claimed. During the pendency of the suit, application for amendment of the plaint was filed for enhancing the claim of damages from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The learned court below having rejected the prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff, the present petition was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment was required to be carried out in the plaint filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on account of the fact that value of the property in the intervening period, during the pendency of the suit, had risen and it was admitted by the respondents-defendants in the statement that its value was Rs. 10,00,000/-. The petitioner-plaintiff had initially in the alternative claimed damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- only, which is required to be amended to claim damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The amendment will not C.R. No. 6060 of 2008 [2] change the nature of the suit as only the amount of damages is sought to be amended. Reliance was placed upon M/s Hi. Sheet Industries v. Litelon Limited, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 324. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants submitted that the suit was filed way back in 2001. The amendment application was filed nearly 7 years thereafter at the time when substantial proceedings in the suit had already taken place. Merely because in the statement, the defendants had stated that the value of the property was Rs. 10,00,000/-, the same will not give any cause of action to the petitioner to claim damages of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Whatever loss, in the wisdom of the petitioner, was suffered by her at the time of filing of the suit was claimed as damages. If a suit is filed now for claiming additional damages, as is sought to be claimed by way of amendment, the same would be clearly time barred and if the claim sought to be made by way of amendment is time barred, the same cannot be allowed to be claimed by way of amendment of the plaint. Reliance was placed upon T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board and others, (2004) 3 SCC 392. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Merely because the defendants in the statement stated the value of the property to be of Rs. 10,00,000/- will not give any cause of action to the petitioner to seek amendment of the plaint to claim damages to that extent. The sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 15.10.1991, the possession of which was taken by the decree holder, namely, Ved Bassi from the petitioner in the year 1996 on the plea that the property in question was in fact allotted to him in the consolidation proceedings. The suit was filed by the petitioner in 2001 for claiming possession of the property and in the alternative, damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The amendment is sought to be made nearly 7 years after the filing of the suit to enhance the claim of damages to Rs. 10,00,000/- which cannot be permitted. Merely because the suit is pending in the court, even if the value of the property in the intervening period had increased, amendment cannot be made to enhance damages. The learned court below has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.2.2009 mk C.R. No. 6060 of 2008 [3]