JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

In the present civil revision petition, the challenge is to the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurugram by which, the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for the amendment of the plaint has been declined.

2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned here for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. Petitioner-plaintiff claimed that there was an agreement to sell between respondent/defendant No.1 and the plaintiff dated 19.02.2014 for selling the land measuring 2 Bighas, 12 Biswa and 3 Biswansi for an amount of Rs.50 lacs, out of which, Rs.30 lacs was paid to respondent No.1 as the earnest money. As per the plaint, the agreement to sell dated 19.02.2014 was to be converted into the sale deed within a period of one year of signing of the agreement to sell i.e by 19.02.2015.

4. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, three months after the execution of the agreement to sell in question i.e. on 09.05.2014, respondent No.1 executed a release deed No.3136 dated 09.05.2014 in favour of his wife and children i.e respondents No. 2 to 4 qua the same property. Realizing that respondent No.1 has resiled from the agreement to sell in question, a suit was filed by petitioner on 03.06.2014 challenging the said release deed of the property in question in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4.

5. Upon notice of motion, respondent/defendant No.1 i.e the person, who had executed an agreement to sell dated 19.02.2014 with the petitioner did not appear but defendants No. 2 to 4, who were the beneficiary of the release deed dated 09.05.2014 denied the execution of the said agreement to sell. The suit is still being tried by the trial Court.

6. In the year 2021, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint so as to include his claim for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 19.02.2014, which application has been declined by the trial Court vide order dated 20.12.2022 on the ground that not only the said amendment will change the nature of the suit but even the relief which is being sought in the amendment of the plaint, is time barred keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. The impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the trial Court rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint is under challenge in the present civil revision petition.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

9. It is a conceded fact before this Court that as per the alleged agreement to sell dated 19.02.2014, the sale deed was to be recorded on or before 19.02.2015 qua the property in question.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that in case the sale deed was not got registered in pursuance to the alleged agreement to sell dated 19.02.2014, the cause of action would have accrued to the petitioner-plaintiff on 19.02.2015 to avail appropriate remedy for the specific performance of the said agreement to sell and for seeking the said relief, the limitation is three years from the date cause of action accrued.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for the cancellation of the relinquish deed by respondent No.1, in favour of the other respondents was pending, the operation of the limitation period of three years will stop.

12. Though the said argument has been raised but no provision of law has been cited to support the said argument. Merely that the relinquish deed dated 09.05.2014 qua the same property was un