Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Plaintiff Subhash Chander instituted a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 2.6.2001 that was stated to have been entered into with defendant Harphool Singh in respect of suit property measuring 6 kanals situated at village Alampur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. It was pleaded that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit land for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000 and a sum of Rs.1,10,000 was paid towards earnest money. Agreement to sell was stated to have been scribed by Kishori Lal, petition writer at the instance of the defendant and the defendant had put his signatures and thumb impressions upon the same after having admitted the contents thereof to be true. The attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell were Sultan Singh and Sat Narain Sharma. Such agreement to sell was also attested by the Notary Public; Kurukshetra on 2.6.2001 itself. The last date for execution and registration of the sale-deed was stipulated as 30.4.2002. Plaintiff also pleaded that the defendant had entered into an agreement of even date i.e. 2.6.2001 with his brother Mohinder Singh for land measuring 8 kanals for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000 and had received earnest money of Rs.1,45,000 in which the last date for execution of the sale-deed was fixed as 31.12.2001.

2. It was pleaded that on the stipulated date i.e. 30.4.2002, the plaintiff had attended the office of Sub Registrar, Thanesar along with the balance sale-consideration and other expenses to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant did not come present. Accordingly, the plaintiff got his presence marked by moving an application and affidavit which was duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Thanesar on 30.4.2002 itself. Accordingly, the plaintiff averred that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Plaintiff further pleaded that since there was an apprehension that the defendant was wanting to alienate the suit land to some other person even prior to the target date i.e. 30.4.2002, a suit for permanent injunction had been filed and after the cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance had accrued, he had moved an application for amendment of the plaint claiming the relief of specific performance.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant and in the written statement so filed, it was stated that the plaintiff had brought the defendant to become surety in a loan case and upon such pretext, his signatures/thumb impressions have been obtained on certain blank papers. Defendant denied the execution of agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and even denied receiving of the earnest money. A further stand was taken that the suit land is ancestral and coparcenaries property in the hands of the defendant and thus, he was not even competent to sell the same and as such, there was no question of having entered into the alleged agreement to sell.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment dated 23.5.2009 and a civil appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant stands dismissed in terms of the impugned judgment dated 9.9.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. Resultantly, the defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

5. I have heard Mr. K. S. Banyana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the trial Court had erred in granting permission to amend the suit for permanent injunction to that of suit for specific performance after the expiry of the period of limitation i.e. on 29.11.2005. It was further contended that the suit for specific performance itself was not maintainable and was barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as such remedy had been available wit