IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1046 of 2008 Date of decision: February 20, 2008. Satinder Kaur & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Veena Garg ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. Present: Shri Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the respondent – plaintiff for amendment of her suit and impleadment of some more defendants, has been allowed. The petitioners are the original defendants in the suit. The respondent – plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging, inter-alia, that the petitioner – defendants had entered into an agreement to sell dated 4.11.2003 with her and despite having received the earnest money, followed by further payment of Rs.8 lacs on 12.11.2003, they have failed to execute the sale deed on or before the agreed date of 31.5.2005 and that they be restrained from alienating, transferring or selling, etc. the subject land. During the pendency of the above stated suit, the respondent – plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the suit as also for impleadment of some more defendants alleging, inter-alia, that notwithstanding the agreement to sell dated 4.11.2003 between the parties, the petitioner – defendants have executed sale deeds dated 13.11.2003, 14.1.2004, 10.3.2004, 26.5.2005, etc. regarding the subject land in favour of different persons. The respondent – plaintiff accordingly sought to incorporate the relief of specific performance of the contract, as also impleadment of the vendees in whose favour the above stated sale deeds were executed. By the impugned order, the learned civil court has allowed the respondent – plaintiff's prayer, giving rise to this Revision Petition. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the impugned order. It is vehemently contended that the impugned amendment has completely changed the nature of the suit as the suit for specific performance is founded upon a distinct cause of action as compared to the suit for permanent injunction, therefore, the amendment sought by the respondent ought not to have been allowed. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. And another v. Pioneer Builders, A.P., 2007(1) SLJ 288 as also a judgment of this Court in the case of Hazura Singh v. Dina Nath & Ors., 1997(2) SLJ 1775. In order to appreciate the contention, it may be noticed that according to the respondent – plaintiff, pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 4.11.2003, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 31.5.2005. Admittedly, the limitation to file a suit for specific performance has not expired. No indefeasible right has, thus, accrued in favour of the petitioner – defendants. So far as the change of nature of suit is concerned, the original as well as the amended suits are based upon an 'agreement to sell' entered into between the parties. According to the plaintiff, the petitioners have executed certain sale deeds in favour of different persons during pendency of her injunction-suit. It is in the light of these subsequent events that the respondent – plaintiff sought amendment of her plaint. Though an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, however, the power to allow amendment is wide enough and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings. It is well settled that in their endeavour to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the courts should have liberal approach while considering an amendment application. In the case in hand, even if the proposed amendments were declined, the respondent – plaintiff would have been well within her right to file a separate suit for specific performance. No prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioners by allowing the impugned amendment, especially when the suit for permanent injunction is also at the preliminary stage only. No interference with the impugned order is, therefore, called for. Dismissed. February 20, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge