C.R. No. 2901 of 2011. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2901 of 2011. Date of Decision: 03.05.2011 *** Balkar Singh .. Petitioner VS. Tarlochan Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration to the effect that the agreement to sell dated 15.5.2006 executed by him in favour of respondent-defendant stand rescinded by him and also sought the consequential relief of restraining the defendant from alienating, mortgaging or transferring in any other way or creating any charge on the basis of the aforesaid agreement. The respondent-defendant appeared in the suit and filed counter claim seeking relief of mandatory injunction for recovery of earnest money paid by him in lieu of execution of the agreement to sell along with interest. However, the respondent filed an application for carrying out amendment in the prayer clause of the counter claim to the suit for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- i.e. earnest money along with interest and damages as per agreement dated 15.5.2006 and also from restraining the plaintiff to alienate the suit land and also to incorporate in the body of plaint the pleading that the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is assessed as Rs.25 lacs and hence Court fee of Rs.26,745/- is affixed and also the undertaking to pay the deficient court fee on the amount of interest, after the C.R. No. 2901 of 2011. 2 same are being quantified in his favour. The learned Court below vide order dated 4.3.2011 allowed the application and permitted him to carry out the amendments as sought for by the defendant. Dis-satisfied with the same, plaintiff has filed the present revision petition. Heard. Undisputedly, claim raised by the defendant in the counter claim was for recovery of earnest money. Through the proposed amendment as well the relief remains the same. In other words, there is no change in the basic structure of the claim raised by the defendant. Only instead of relief of mandatory injunction of recovery of earnest money, claim for recovery of earnest money has been substituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases titled as South Konkan Distilleries & Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 513, Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu Vs. Sita Ram Saraugi and others 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 679, Mahant Jagmohan Singh Vs. Mahant Karamjit Singh and others 2010(5) RCR (Civil) 183 (P&H), Sudarshan Chhabra Vs. Paramjit Singh Gill 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 38, Prem Chand Vs. Chetan Dass 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 164, to say that the delayed amendment, at the time when period of limitation has expired, cannot be permitted to allow. There is no merit in this contention. It is well settled that only on the ground of delay and latches amendment cannot be declined, if it is found by the Court that the amendment so sought shall sub-serve ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation. It is also equally true that if a prayer for amendment merely adds to facts already on record, the amendment would be allowed even after statutory period of limitation. Since this Court has already pointed out above that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the claim of the defendant and is in the interest of justice, to avoid further litigation, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgments referred to above. The approach adopted by the learned Court below, while allowing the amendment, following the cases of Puran Ram Vs. Baguram & Anr. 2008(2) Apex Court Judgments 40, Pankaja & Anr. Vs. Yellappa (Dead) by LRs and others 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 401 (SC), Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank NV & Ors. 2007(2) C.R. No. 2901 of 2011. 3 Apex Court Judgments 614(SC) and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. KK Modi & Ors. 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 577. is correct. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The petition being without merit is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 03,2011 Jiten