Civil Revision No. 2235 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2235 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.08.2009 Anguri Devi ....Petitioner versus Paramjit Kaur ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM No. 9411-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 and P-4, and permitted to place on record the true copies thereof. CR No. 2235 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.3.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, dismissing an application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the suit. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,60,000/- i.e. Rs.80,000/- as refund of earnest money, and another Rs.80,000/- as damages for breach of contract/agreement to sell dated 15.6.2002. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 15.6.2002 with the respondent, the adopted daughter of Chiranji Lal S/o Mangal Ram. She claimed her ownership on the basis of 'Will' executed in her favour. However, there was a dispute qua this land with one Vinod Kumar, who also claimed himself, to be legal heir of Chiranji Lal and Civil Revision No. 2235 of 2009 (O&M) -2- had set up a 'Will' in his favour. On the basis of said 'Will', he got mutation sanctioned in his favour. The plaintiff/petitioner in view of the fact that mutation was sanctioned in favour of Vinod Kumar, filed a suit for recovery of earnest money along with damages, by claiming that the respondent did not have any titled to the property, which she had agreed to sell. On an appeal by the respondent, the appellate authority reversed the order of mutation and held respondent to be the owner of the property on the basis of 'Will' executed in her favour. The petitioner, thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the suit, for claiming specific performance of agreement to sell. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Hazura Singh Vs. Dina Nath and others, 1997(2) PLJ 638 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Roop Chand Chaudhari Vs. Smt. Ranjit Kumari, 1990 PLJ 505, wherein this Court has laid down, that amendment of a plaint to seek decree of specific performance of contract in a suit for refund of advance and equal sum by way of damages and interest for not executing the sale deed within specified time, cannot be allowed. It was held, that once the plaintiff files a suit for recovery of earnest money and damages, he is not entitled to seek alternative relief of specific performance even if it was claimed in the suit. The application was rejected being not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puran Ram Vs. Bhaguram and another, 2008(2) Civil Revision No. 2235 of 2009 (O&M) -3- RCR (Civil) 499. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the Court has the discretion to allow an application for amendment of the plaint even where the relief sought to be added by way of amendment is barred by limitation. Furthermore, that amendment, which subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation, should normally be allowed. The contention further was that the amendment should have been allowed, as the petitioner had right to maintain the suit for specific performance, and the amendment was to save multiplicity of proceedings. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid down that the relief, which is not available to a party can also be sought by way of amendment. Nor it can be said that the amendment was to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as in view of law laid down by this Court, relief of specific performance is not available now. The order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be faulted with, being in consonance with law laid down by this Court in Roop Chand Chaudhari Vs. Smt. Ranjit Kumari (supra). No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) August 03, 2009 Judge R.S.