Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7156   OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.4319/2012)

VINAY KUMAR THROUGH ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER          Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

GURDEEP SINGH & ORS.                       Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel in  

support of this appeal and Mr. Sanchit Guru, learned  

counsel appearing for respondent No.1.  

3. This  appeal  seeks  to  challenge  the  order  

dated 1.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge  

of  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  in  Civil  

Revision  No.6618  of  2011,  declining  to  interfere  

with  the  order  dated  20.9.2011  passed  by  the

Page 2

2

Additional  Civil  Judge,  Senior  Division,  Samrala.  

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance  

of an agreement to sale. In the plaint, as it has  

been  filed,  the  date  of  the  agreement  has  been  

mentioned  as  17.1.2004.  It  is  the  case  of  the  

plaintiff-appellant  that  the  year  has  been  

erroneously mentioned in the agreement and, in fact,  

it is an agreement dated 17.1.2005.   

4. The plaintiff-appellant moved an application  

initially to amend the plaint, and in that he sought  

appropriate correction of the plaint as to the date  

of  agreement  from  17.1.2004  to  17.1.2005.  That  

application  was  rejected.   The  appellant  did  not  

choose to challenge that order but he moved another  

application on 1.12.2009 wherein he prayed that an  

additional  declaration  be  granted.  The  addition  

which was sought to be made was as follows:

“8. That the applicant/plaintiff now wants to  

make the amendment in the plaint as under:-

i) That the plaintiff wants to add in  

the heading and in the prayer clause of the  

plaint the following relief of declaration:-   

'And suit for declaration to the effect  

that the date of agreement to sell is

Page 3

3

17-1-2005 instead of 17-1-2004 which is  

liable  to be  rectified as  the mistake  

occurred  due  to  typographic  error  and  

not intentional.'

ii)  That  the  plaintiff  also  wants  to  

write/correct the date as 17-1-2005 instead of  

17-1-2004 in the headnote, body and the prayer  

clause of the plaint.”

5. That application was rejected by the learned  

Additional Civil Judge taking the view that since  

one amendment application was already rejected, the  

second one could not lie. It is this order of the  

Additional Civil Judge which was challenged before  

the  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court.  The  

learned  Single  Judge  has  left  that  order  

undisturbed. Being aggrieved by the order passed by  

the  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court,  the  

present appeal has come before us.

6. Mr.  Patwalia,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the appellant submits that the prayers  

in  the  two  applications  for  amendment  were  

different.  The  earlier  one  sought  to  amend  the  

plaint  and  though  it  has  been  rejected,  the  

amendment now sought was with a view to point out

Page 4

4

that the date of agreement was wrongly mentioned in  

the suit document. He submits that the learned Judge  

ignored  the  fact  that  the  two  amendments  were  

different and therefore, it could not be said that  

the plaintiff-appellant  was trying  to espouse  the  

same cause once again.   

7. Mr. Sanchit Guru, learned counsel appearing  

for the respondents on the other hand, submits that  

since  the  plaintiff-appellant  had  made  the  same  

prayer  once  again,  this  should  not  be  permitted.  

Such an application should be held to be barred by  

the doctrine of res judicata. Apart from that, he  

submits  that  the  new  prayer  would  be  beyond  the  

period of limitation and therefore on that ground  

also it could not be permitted.  

8. We  have  noted  the  submissions  of  both  the  

counsel.  We  are  clearly  of  the  view  that  the  

amendment which was sought on the second occasion,  

was different from the earlier one. The application  

which sought to make the amendment to the plaint on  

1.12.2009, was with a view to seek a declaration  

regarding  the  correct  date  in  the  suit  document.

Page 5

5

That was not the prayer in the application filed  

earlier.   That  being  so,  the  second  application  

could not be said to be hit by the doctrine of res  

judicata.   Therefore,  in  our  view,  the  amendment  

requires to be allowed.  This is because the main  

submission of the appellant-plaintiff was that the  

document was executed on 17.1.2005.  It is also the  

case  of  the  appellant  that  in  pursuance  thereto,  

some  substantial  payment  has  been  made.  This  is  

denied by the respondent-defendant. That being the  

position,  this  issue  will  have  to  go  to  trial.  

However, it will be open to the respondents to raise  

the  issue  of  limitation.  As  far  as  the  plea  of  

limitation  is  concerned,  we  do  not  express  any  

opinion  thereon.  The  issue  as  to  whether  the  

declaration  as  sought  now  should  ultimately  be  

granted or not, will also be decided at the end of  

the trial.  

9. In view of what is stated above, this appeal  

is allowed, the order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the  

leaned Single Judge of the High Court as well as  

that of the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division,  

dated  20.9.2011  are  set  aside.  The  amendment

Page 6

6

application  moved  by  the  plaintiff-appellant  on  

1.12.2009 is allowed.  The plaintiff-appellant will  

carry out the necessary amendment within two weeks  

and  the  respondents  may  file  written  statement  

within four weeks thereafter. It will be open to the  

plaintiff-appellant to lead evidence on the amended  

plaint.  As stated earlier, it will be open to the  

respondents to raise both the pleas as to whether  

the prayer now permitted, should at all be granted  

and as far as this prayer is concerned whether it  

would be beyond limitation.  

10. The appeal is accordingly allowed without any  

order as to costs.  All the I.As. are disposed of.

..........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

.........................J   (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi; August 22, 2013.