IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 06.02.2026 Nanku Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus Vikram Singh & Anr ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant- petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, at the stage of arguments, has been allowed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 herein filed a suit on 10.12.2014 for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.02.2014. In the written statement it was clearly stated that the suit was not maintainable in the present form and further it was elaborated that the agreement to sell dated 13.02.2014 was cancelled on 16.10.2014. The issues were framed on 12.05.2015 and one of the issues framed was qua the maintainability of the suit. On 21.01.2020 arguments were heard in the matter and it was reserved and shown for orders on 22.01.2020. However, the Presiding Officer was transferred and thereafter the arguments were again heard in the matter by the Successor Presiding Officer on 09.03.2020. The case was reserved and was shown for orders on 18.03.2020. However, due to the situation created because of Pandemic Covid-19, work was suspended and the order could not be pronounced on 18.03.2020. Thereafter, the present application for amendment of the plaint was filed on 16.02.2021 wherein a plea was raised for challenging the cancellation dated 16.10.2014 in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of I.S. Sikandar (D) by LRs Vs. K. Subramani & Ors. [2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 236]. Reply was filed to the said application and vide the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 the amendment application was allowed. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend that at the stage of arguments, the present application has been filed for amendment introducing a time-barred claim. Learned counsel would further contend that though it was noticed by the Trial Court that the amendment application was filed at a belated stage and the judgment in I.S. Sikandar’s case (supra) had already been pronounced in the year 2014, yet allowed the application and in order to compensate the delay, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was directed to deposit costs of ₹500/- at DLSA, Kurukshetra. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that by way of the amendment, a totally time-barred claim is being introduced as the limitation period for challenging the cancellation is three years as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned counsel relying on the judgment in I.S. Sikandar’s case (supra) would contend that since the agreement stood cancelled, the suit for specific performance was not maintainable without seeking a declaration that the termination of the agreement was bad in law. It is further the contention that the said judgment in I.S. Sikandar’s case (supra) is dated 29.08.2013 i.e. much prior to the filing of the present suit. Learned counsel has further contended that his entire defense had been disclosed as the arguments were heard on two occasions and on both the occasions the argument qua the termination of agreement not having been challenged was raised.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has contended that the suit cannot be dismissed only on the basis of hyper-

technical objections.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the present case the judgment in I.S. Sikandar’s case (supra) was pronounced on 29.08.2013 and their Lordships in para Nos.16 and 17 have specifically held