Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: - The plaintiff is before this Court impugning the order dated 4.9.2014 passed by the learned Court below, whereby the application filed for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

2. The proceedings arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.8.2009. It is claimed that the suit was filed by the plaintiff as talks of compromise failed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-vendee submitted that respondent nos. 1 and 2/ vendors agreed to sell House No. 1240, Urban Estate, Jind, vide agreement dated 12.8.2009 to the petitioner-vendee for a total sale consideration of Rs. 50,25,000/-. Earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 1.12.2009. The vendors having not got the sale-deed executed on or before the date fixed, the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell was filed on 1.11.2010. During the pendency of the suit, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking to challenge the communication dated 28.12.2009 addressed by the vendors to the vendee cancelling the agreement. It was required on account of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in I. S. Sikandar (D) By LRs. Vs K. Subramani and others [2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 688] : 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 236. The amendment has been sought only in the title and prayer clause of the plaint. No evidence is to be led as the entire evidence is already on record. It was further submitted that nature and cause of action of the suit will not change as the ultimate relief is possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. The amendment was necessitated only because of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It is not a case of lack of due diligence as the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court came very recently. The power to allow amendment at any stage is quite wide. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Puran Ram vs Bhaguram and another [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 784] : AIR 2008 SC 1960, Prithi Pal Singh and another vs Amrik Singh and others 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 327, Abdul Rehman and another vs Mohd. Ruldu and others [2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 4726 : 2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3486 (SC)] : 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 481, and judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Institute of Education, Ramachandrapuram, rep. by its President Smt. V. Ganga Bhavani vs Ramachandrapuram Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner and another 2014 (3) Civil Court Cases 538. It was further submitted that after the amendment is allowed, the same relates back to the date of filing of the suit.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that letter dated 28.12.2009 terminating the agreement to sell was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. The same was not challenged at the time of filing of the suit. At this stage amendment cannot be permitted to challenge the letter dated 28.12.2009, as a fresh suit to challenge the same would be time barred. By way of amendment, the time barred claim cannot be permitted to be added. The amendment is sought only in the title and the prayer clause. There is no pleadings in the suit with reference to the same, and without that, the amendment is irrelevant, as the petitioner has not pleaded in the plaint that the letter cancelling the agreement is bad for any reason. Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in I. S. Sikandar’s case (supra), does not give a fresh cause of action. It only declares a law. In fact there was no change in law. The trial has already concluded. At the fag end, amendment in the plaint should not be allowed. In support of the plea, reliance was placed upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Gurawara (dead) through LRs vs M/s S. K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and another [2008(6) Law Herald (SC) 4209] : 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 824, Rameshkumar Agarwal vs Rajmala Exports Private Limite