Civil Revision No.2828 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2828 of 2010 Date of decision : 30-06-2010 Kuldeep Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS M/s Chander Bhan Roshan Lal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Respondent – plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction. A copy of the plaint is at Annexure P-1. In the suit, it has been specifically stated that defendant – petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.47,750/- from the respondent – plaintiff on 31.05.1999 on interest @24% p.a. Later-on, he returned only Rs.8000/- and along with interest the amount due was Rs.49,750/-. A prayer was made that petitioner-defendant be directed to pay the amount of Rs.49,750/- plus interest minus Rs.8000/-. In the written statement filed, petitioner-defendant denied that he had obtained any loan. Later-on, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for converting the suit into recovery suit. That application was withdrawn by the counsel with liberty to press the application later-on. Later an application (Annexure P-7) was filed to deposit Rs.5570/- as Civil Revision No.2828 of 2010 -2- advalorem Court fee. This application was accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court held that from the perusal of the plaint, even though suit has been filed as a suit for mandatory injunction but for all intents and purposes it was suit for recovery. Therefore, trial Court permitted the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in Court fee vide its order dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure P-9). This has been challenged by the petitioner in the present revision petition. It is urged that in case petitioner is allowed to deposit the Court fee, it will tantamount to amendment of the suit, which cannot be permitted as the same is time barred. A reliance has been placed on Krishna Rani versus Ram Kishan, 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 519 (P&H) and a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers versus Narayanaswamy & Sons & Others, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 27 wherein it has been held that as a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. This contention is sought to be further fortified by placing reliance on South Konkan Distilleries & Anr. versus Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors., 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 513. In the present case, no amendment has been sought. A perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-1) reveals that for all intents and purposes, plaintiff intended to recover the amount which he had advanced as a loan. Mere an amendment in the title of the suit cannot bar the plaintiff to seek the relief for which he has laid the foundation in the plaint. Thus no fault can be found with the order of Civil Revision No.2828 of 2010 -3- the trial Court. No interference is warranted. The present revision petition is dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 30-06-2010 JUDGE manju