Civil Revision No.5507 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.5507 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.9.2011 Smt. Nimrita Naresh Kaur ... Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner had instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.5.1991 on 5.5.1994. The defendants therein have filed their written statement on 15.11.1999. An application, for amendment of the plaint and impleadment of the party, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed on 16.4.2002. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 27.7.2011 (Annexure P4), has declined both the prayers made in the application (Annexure P3). The trial Court has primarily rejected the application on the ground that the same is barred by time. A specific plea was raised by the defendants in their written statement, filed in the year 1999, that the sale deed has been executed in favour of respondent/defendant No.3. The petitioner has not been diligent enough Civil Revision No.5507 of 2011 2 to seek amendment at the earliest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Puran Ram v. Bhaguram and Another 2008(2) Recent Civil Reports 499 to contend that even where the relief sought has become barred by limitation, amendment can be allowed. A perusal of the judgment reveals that in that case there was a mistake in description of the property in the agreement. Therefore, the Court had allowed the amendment by observing that such a prayer can be entertained at any stage. Furthermore, in Puran Ram's case (supra), reliance has been placed upon Pankaja v. Yellappa (Dead) by LRs 2004(3) Recent Civil Reports 723, wherein it was held that there is no absolute rule that in case of delay, the amendment should not be allowed. It was further observed that the discretion of the Court in that regard depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and such discretion has to be exercised on a judicious evaluation thereof. In the present case, the relief sought for has been declined by the trial Court by observing as under:- “11...But record on file points otherwise to the effect that plaintiff was very much aware of the sale deed registered on 20.9.1991 as same has been signed by plaintiff herself on behalf of the purchaser. Plaintiff is not an illiterate lady so as to say that she could not read the contents of the sale deed...” XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “12. Therefore, the challenge to sale deed dated 20.9.1991 by filing application on 17.4.2000 is Civil Revision No.5507 of 2011 3 clearly barred by time.” 13. Improvement Trust was never party to the agreement in question. If it is added as defendant No.4 the nature of proceedings are going to be changed by impleading a person in as suit for specific performance as a party which was never a party to the agreement in question.” This Court is not declining the relief to the petitioner on the ground that the relief sought was barred by limitation but considering the conduct of the petitioner that he was not diligent enough to approach the Court at the earliest. Hence, no interference is warranted in the well reasoned order, passed by the trial Court and the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 9, 2011 “DK”