Civil Revision No. 3451 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3451 of 2011 Date of Decision: 24.5.2011 *** Hakiman .. Petitioner Vs. Saheed .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The application of the respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint has been allowed vide order dated 20.4.2011, which has been impugned by the petitioner-defendant by way of present civil revision petition. The plea of the defendant is that the amendment so sought was hit by limitation. Para No.6 of the impugned order deals with this aspect of the matter and reads as under:- “6. It is well settled that law of amendment is very liberal. It has been held that in case titled as Rikhi Ram Vs. Dhoom Singh and others, 1999(2) PLJ 51(P&H), that amendment of pleadings, can be done at any time during pendency of suit unless claim barred by time. In this case, the sale deed was to be executed on 13.8.2007 on the basis of agreement to sell dated 13.10.2006 and the instant application was filed on 12.8.2009. It is a matter of evidence whether or not the agreement was executed and whether or not the defendant agreed to get the land freed from all encumbrances before execution of sale deed. Even if document is taken on face value as Civil Revision No. 3451 of 2011 2 cause of action to file a suit for possession by way of specific performance existed even on the day when the applicant moved the present application, it cannot be said in any manner that the applicant wants to take a time barred plea. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the instant application stands allowed....” From the above, no fault could be found with the approach adopted by the learned trial Court. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 24, 2011 Jiten