Civil Revision No. 8079 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8079 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2010. Shyam Lal ....Petitioner Versus Bimla Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present:- Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against respondents No. 1 to 6, for the land measuring 12 Marlas on the basis of an agreement dated 16.10.2000 which was allegedly executed between the petitioner and Jai Bhagwan (since deceased) Predecessor-in-interest of the aforesaid respondents. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Yamunanagar. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, respondents No. 1 to 6 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar. In that appeal the petitioner moved an application for correction of the agreement to sell, as well as, the description of the property in the suit. The aforesaid application of the petitioner has been dismissed vide impugned order holding that if such an amendment is allowed that would change the nature of the claim made in the plaint which would cause prejudice to the respondents. It was also found by the lower Appellate Court that the application for amendment was moved at the stage of appeal. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that, by way of amendment, the correction in the document can be made and that the Civil Court has the power to rectify the contract/agreement under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act. In support of his case learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a Civil Revision No. 8079 of 2010 (O&M) 2 judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Puran Ram Vs. Baguram and another 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 0001. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the other documents placed on record of this case. There is no dispute that the aforesaid proposition of law as canvassed before this Court on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Puran Ram case (supra). However, in the present case, the petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement in question and also persued the case knowing well, about the description of the property as mentioned in the aforesaid agreement sought to be rectified now and therefore no fault can be found with the observation of the lower Appellate Court that the petitioner has moved the amended application at a belated stage i.e. before Appellate Court. The facts of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the amendment was sought in that case before the trial Court which was allowed as that amendment would have not caused any prejudice to the defendants/respondents as they had a right to contest the claim of the plaintiff as rectified/amended and had an opportunity to contest the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the amended claim. However, in the present case, the amendment is being sought at the Appellate stage and if amendment sought is allowed and the petitioner is allowed to rectify the document/agreement in question itself ( i.e. very basis of the suit for specific performance of the agreement), it will definitely change the claim made in his earlier plaint which shall cause a great prejudice to the defendants/respondent. In this view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 10.12.2010. JUDGE Reema