1

CR-5157 of 2016

2023:PHHC: 088382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-5157 of 2016(O&M)

Date of Decision: 14.07.2023

Zorawar Singh

…Petitioner

Versus

Arshdeep Singh & Ors.

…Respondents

CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

Present:- Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate

For the petitioner.

Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate and

Mr. Vishal Pal Singh, Advocate

For respondent No.2.

Mr. Mohit, Advocate for

Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate

For respondent No.5.

***

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1.

The instant civil revision has been filed against the order dated

20.07.2016 (Annexure P-7) whereby an application filed by the petitioner/

plaintiff for amendment of the plaint in order to seek alternative relief for

recovery of Rs.51,00,000/- from the defendants, has been dismissed.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/ plaintiff filed suit

for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of Flat No. F-133,

situated at Spangle Condos, Gazipur (Zirakpur), District SAS Nagar, on

27.03.2012. Thereafter, petitioner/ plaintiff got amended the plaint with

further prayer for declaration that sale deed dated 31.05.2012 executed and

registered by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 and sale deed

dated 08.10.2012 executed and registered by defendant No.2 in favour of

JITEN SHARMA

2023.07.18 10:12

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2

CR-5157 of 2016

2023:PHHC: 088382

Dalip Kaur are illegal, null and void. The suit has been contested by the

defendants who filed written statements and thereafter issues were framed

and the suit is pending for the last more than 10 years and during pendency

of the suit the petitioner/ plaintiff filed an application in 2016 to claim

alternative relief for recovery of Rs.51,00,000/- which was paid by him for

purchase of flat No. F-133 along with interest.

3.

The counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned

order submits that the proposed amendment is necessary for the just decision

of the suit and if allowed is going to avoid the multiplicity of litigation

between the parties and further the said amendment is not going to prejudice

the respondents in any manner.

4.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

petitioner.

5.

There is no dispute that the civil suit was filed by the petitioner/

plaintiff on 27.03.2012 and in the year 2016 when the suit was fixed for

remaining evidence of the plaintiff, the application for amendment of the

plaint was moved by the petitioner/ plaintiff as has been detailed above. The

said application was contested by the opposite party and finally dismissed

vide impugned order dated 20.07.2016. Admittedly, petitioner/ plaintiff was

fully aware of the total amount which was given by him to defendants at the

time of purchase of flat in question. It is admitted case of the plaintiff that

the said payment was made by him in the year 2011 before filing of the suit.

So, it cannot be said that the relief sought by way of amendment of the plaint

was not pleaded in the original plaint due to inadvertence or oversight.

Further, it appears that the amendment which the petitioner/ plaintiff is

seeking is clearly time barred being sought after expiry of three years of the

JITEN SHARMA

2023.07.18 10:12

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3

CR-5157 of 2016

2023:PHHC: 088382

date on which the disputed amount was paid to defendants by the petitioner/

plaintiff.

6.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation

Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2022 SCC Online SC1128 has held that

amendment relating to time barred claim is not permissible.

7.

In the instant case as the relief sought to be claimed by way of

amendment by the petitioner/ plaintiff is beyond limitation, such a prayer is

to be reje