Civil Revision No. 746 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 746 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.2.2010 Mukat Lal ....Petitioner Versus Gopi Krishan Khanna and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for ownership with possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondents. Sale deeds regarding the property in question were executed by respondents No.1 and 2 in favour of Prem Kumar-respondent No. 3. The suit was at the fag end and was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments when the application for amendment was filed seeking to add prayer to the effect that relief for specific performance of agreement to sell be permitted to be added for which adequate pleadings were already there in the plaint. The prayer having been rejected the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer for amendment can be allowed at any stage of proceedings in case the same arise out of the pleadings of the parties which the defendants could very well make out. In the present case all the ingredients required for claiming additional relief of specific performance of agreement to sell have already been pleaded and the amendment which is sought is only in the prayer clause which is not going to change the nature of suit or otherwise prejudice the case of the respondents- defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The agreement to sell which is sought to be enforced is admittedly not a written document rather it is claimed to be an oral understanding reached between the parties way back in 1963-64. The fact that the sale deeds pertaining to that property was executed by respondents No.1 and 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 on March 29, 2001 is also not in dispute. The present suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on April 10, 2004. There is no relief claimed regarding specific performance of oral agreement to sell which is Civil Revision No. 746 of 2010 (O&M) 2 stated to be of the year 1963-64. The last date on which the sale deeds in terms of oral agreement to sell, was to be executed, is also not known. In any case even if no time limit is considered still the sale deeds of the property in question having been executed by respondents No.1 and 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 on March 29, 2001 and the same being in knowledge of the petitioner, the relief to claim specific performance of oral agreement to sell allegedly executed way back in the year 1963-64, was time barred even at the time of filing of suit, what to talk of seeking relief qua that by way of amendment sought by filing an application on 23.2.2008. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 4.2.2010 JUDGE Reema