In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6546 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: May 20, 2009 Satnam Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. Narinder Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The plaintiff-respondent (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') by way of relief of permanent injunction has claimed himself to be in possession of the property in dispute on the strength of the sale deed, but he has also alleged that he came to know that the defendants have got the sale deed in their favour and they are claiming rights on the basis of the said sale deed. Since the case is already at the stage of evidence and for the purpose of determining the lawful possession, the court has to reach the definite conclusion as to whether the plaintiff has a better title. Though the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and the amendment sought for would not change the nature of the suit. Learned counsel for the defendant has urged that since the relief for declaration as claimed by way of amendment is time barred, therefore, no amendment could be allowed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case the plea regarding limitation could certainly be raised before the trial court and the trial court would examine if the amendment would relate back to the date of filing of the suit or from the date, the plaint was amended. As such, the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. May 20, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge