C.R. No.3048 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3048 of 2009. Decided on July 21, 2009. Satwant Kaur .. Petitioner VERSUS Shamsher Singh and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J . (ORAL) Defendant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.02.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Batala, permitting the plaintiffs-respondents, to amend the plaint to challenge the validity of compromise dated 04.05.2002, entered in RSA, decided by High Court on 13.05.2002. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiffs-respondents have filed a suit for specific performance on 17.07.2001, on the basis of agreement of sale dated 27.03.1989. On 01.09.2002, the petitioner-defendant had filed an application for C.R. No.3048 of 2009 -2- amendment of written statement to incorporate a plea that on account of compromise having been arrived at on 4th May 2002, in RSA, pertaining to a dispute of ownership rights between Veero and Surjan Singh etc., the suit for specific performance deserves to be dismissed. Though, the plaintiffs-respondents had acquired knowledge about the compromise dated 04.05.2002, but they did not file any application to challenge the compromise. It has been contended that it was only on 22.01.2007, after a lapse of about 4/5 years, that by moving an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiffs-respondents sought a declaration that the agreement dated 04.05.2002, had been obtained by playing fraud with the High Court and that it was not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, was also filed to implead added defendants which has also been allowed by the Court. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that the petitioner do not have any objection regarding the impleadment of the new defendants who were parties to the compromise, but they have got an objection to the allowing of the amendment by the impugned order dated 19.02.2009, to permit the plaintiffs-respondents to challenge the validity of compromise dated 04.05.2002. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the plaintiffs-respondents had acquired knowledge about the compromise on 01.09.2002, and by permitting them to amend their plaint to challenge the compromise of year 2002, by way of amendment would tantamount to permitting them to C.R. No.3048 of 2009 -3- challenge compromise/document after expiry of period of limitation. When a plea is barred by limitation, the same cannot be permitted to be added by way of amendment of written statement. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on AIR, 1996, S.C., 2358, Radhika Devi Vs.Bajrangi Singh and others, in support of his contention that when the defendant acquired right by bar of limitation, amendment, if allowed, would defeat right accrued in favour of defendant and the amendment, in such circumstances, should not be allowed. He has also relied upon 2006 (2) Civil Court Cases, Page 41, Prem Chand Vs. Chetan Dass, wherein it has been observed that parties should not be allowed amendment of a claim or relief which is barred by law of limitation when amendment is sought to be made as it defeats a legal right which has accrued in favour of a party. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, at length, and gone through the entire facts and circumstances of this case. It is an admitted fact that the suit for specific performance has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondents on 17.07.2001, on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 27.03.1989. It was the defendant-petitioner who had, for the first time, relied upon a compromise dated 04.05.2002, which had been entered into between the other parties affecting the legal rights of the plaintiffs and defendant in the present case of specific performance claiming that the said compromise defeats the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents. Compromise dated 04.05.2002, being a subsequent event after filing of the suit was C.R. No.3048 of 2009 -4- permitted to be incorporated in the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner. During the pendency of the suit which started in the year 2001, the plaintiffs-respondents now want to challenge the validity of the compromise dated 04.05.2002, on the ground that it is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents. Since the same compromise has been relied upon by the petitioner-defendant to amend the written statement to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs- respondents, it will not debar the plaintiffs-respondents to challenge the validity of a document which has come into existence during pendency of the suit. The trial Court while allowing the amendment has formed an opinion that amendment is necessary for the correct adjudication of the case and the defendant-petitioner can be compensated by way of costs. There is no dispute regarding the law referred to by the counsel for the defendant-petitioner in Radhika Devi's case (Supra), but when a document has come into existence during pendency of the case and has already been relied upon by the defendant-petitioner, the plaintiffs-respondents who were not a party to the compromise cannot be deprived of their rights to plead that the said compromise does not affect their rights. So far as the plea of limitation is concerned, it will always be open to the defendant- petitioner to raise the same which certainly would be decided by the Court on the basis of merits. Knowledge about the document appears to be a disputed question of fact, at this moment, so no ground is made out for interference. Disposed of without prejudice to the rights of the C.R. No.3048 of 2009 -5- petitioner to raise the plea of limitation regarding the compromise dated 04.05.2002. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 21, 2009. rkarora