IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4498 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: December 22, 2008 Harbans Singh ... Appellant Versus Rajinder Kumar ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by which the suit of the appellant for specific performance was decreed and, consequently dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation. The learned Lower Appellate Court relied upon the fact that the date fixed for sale was 26.12.1989 and that though originally the appellant's suit for mandatory injunction was instituted on 30.05.1992, however, application for amendment was filed only in the year 1994 and the same was allowed subject to the right of the respondent to claim bar of limitation. In the view of the learned Lower Appellate Court, the application for amendment for claiming specific relief having been filed more RSA No.4498 of 2005 -2- than 3 years after the date fixed, the suit of the appellant would have to be barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer to any judgment by which this view can be held to be wrong. Learned counsel has argued that admittedly there was no learned Judge in the Court right from June 1992 to 1994 and that as soon as the Presiding Officer was appointed, application for the amendment was moved. I am afraid, this argument does not cut any ice. Absence of Presiding Officer was no bar to the filing of an application for amendment. In Tarlok Singh vs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal reported as 1996 PLJ page 237, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “Sh. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that since the respondent had refused performance the suit must be deemed to have been filed on 23.12.1987 and, therefore, when the amendment was allowed, it would relate back to the date of filing the suit which was filed within 3 years from the date of the refusal. Accordingly, the suit is not barred by limitation. Sh. U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of the liberty given by the High Court the appellant is entitled to raise the plea of limitation. The question is as to when the limitation began to run? In view of the admitted position that the contract was to be performed within 15 days after the injunction was vacated, the limitation began to run on 6.4.1986. In view of the position that the suit for perpetual injunction was converted into one for specific performance by order dated 25.8.1989, the suit must be deemed to have been instituted on 25.08.1989, and the suit was clearly barred by limitation. We find RSA No.4498 of 2005 -3- force in the stand of the appellant.” In this view of the matter, no infirmity can be found in this appeal on the question of limitation. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. December 22, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE