Holding

An amendment to correct a mutual mistake in the description of the suit property, even in the agreement, is permissible under the proviso to Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act and does not alter the nature of the suit or fall foul of limitation, rendering the High Court’s interference improper.

Summary

Puran Ram purchased agricultural land from Bhaguram but the sale deed was never executed. The agreement mistakenly described the land as Chak No. 3 SSM instead of Chak No. 3 SLM. In the suit for specific performance, the plaintiff sought to amend both the plaint and the agreement to correct this description. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the High Court, invoking Article 227, set aside that order on the grounds of limitation and alleged change of the suit’s nature to a declaration. The Supreme Court held that, under the proviso to Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, such amendment is permissible, does not alter the nature of the suit, and is not barred by limitation; consequently, the High Court’s interference was unwarranted. The appeal was partly allowed, restoring the trial court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether a plaint and the underlying agreement can be amended to rectify a mutual mistake in the description of the suit property under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Whether such amendment changes the nature of a suit for specific performance into a suit for declaration.
Whether the amendment is barred by the limitation period.
Whether the High Court may set aside the trial court’s discretionary order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 6 Rule 17
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 26

Subjects

specific performancerectification of instrumentamendment of plaintmutual mistakelimitation periodcivil procedureArticle 227judicial discretionsuit for declaration

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 663

.. • ~
PURAN RAM A
v.
BHAGURAM AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1673 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 29, 2008
8
[TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
. • Specific Relief Act, 1963: s. 26 - Rectification of
instrument - Suit for specific performance of agreement for
sale - Part of suit property wrongly described by mutual c
mistake in the agreement for sale and in the plaint - Prayer
for amendment of plaint and agreement for sale to correct a
part of description of suit property - Permissibility of - Held:
Permissible by virtue of proviso to s.26- The relief claimed in
the suit would remain same and would not change the nature
D
of suit from suit for specific performance to suit for declaration
•• - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 r. 17.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 r. 17 -Amendment
application - Held: Can be allowed by court in its discretion
even where the relief sought to be added by amendment is E
barred by limitation.
The parties entered into agreement for sale of suit
property. Appellant-purchaser paid a sum of Rs.50,0001·
... ~
to the respondent-vendor. By virtue of this payment,
respondent no.1 put the appellant in possession of the F
property and also agreed to execute the sale deed on
receiving a further sum of Rs.1,50,0001· from the appellant
within 30 days. Respondent No.1 received the balance
consideration and executed an agreement to sell and
power of Attorney in favour of appellant. However, he G
failed to execute the sale deed.
, -., The appellant filed a suit for specific perto·rmance of
contract for sale and for permanent injunction in respect
663 H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
. •.
A of the suit property. In the plaint, appellant described the
suit property as falling in Chak No. 3 SSM. When the
description of a part of the suit property was found to be
a mutual mistake, appellant filed an application under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking the amendment of the plaint
B and for giving the description of the suit property as Chak
No.3 SLM. The trial Court rejected the prayer for
amendment of the plaint on the ground that plaint was . ...
filed on the basis of agreement to sell and since no prayer
was made for amending the agreement, the application
c for amendment of the plaint could not be allowed.
The appellant filed another application for
amendment of the plaint seeking amendment this time not
only of the plaint but also of the agreement to sell. The
First Appellate Court allowed the said application.
D Aggrieved respondent No.2, who was purchaser of suit
property, from respondent no.1 filed a petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. High Court allowed
the petition on the ground that relief sought for by the
appellant by way of amendment of the plaint could not be
E allowed in view of the expiry of the period of limitation;
and that if such amendment was allowed, the nature of
the suit would change from a suit for specific performance
of contract for sale to a suit for declaration which was not
permissible. Hence the present appeal.
F Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In a suit for specific performance of contract
for sale, it is permissible to amend a part of the description
of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the
G agreement in terms of s.26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
A reading of the two conditions made under s.26 of the
Act show that either party may institute a suit to have the
instrument rectified or a party who has already filed a suit •'
in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue
may claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified.
H
... • . PURAN RAM v. BHAGURAM AND ANR.

The main issue in the instant suit for specific performance
665

A
of the contract for sale was relating to the agreement for
sale in which a part of the description of the suit property
was wrongly given by mutual mistake and therefore,
needed to be amended. S.26, of course, says that it would
be open to a party to institute a suit for correcting the B
.. description of the suit property, but the proviso to s.26
clearly permits that where a party has not claimed any
such relief in his pleading, the court shall at any stage of
the proceeding allow him to amend the plaint on such
terms as may be just for including such claim. From a plain c
reading of the provisions under s.26 of the Act, there is
no reason why the prayer for amendment of the agreement
to correct a part of the description of the suit property
from Chak No. 3 SSM to Chak No. 3 SLM, later on
converted to Chak No. 3 SWM could not be granted. It is
, + 0
only a correction or rectification of a part of the description
of the suit property, which cannot involve either the
question of limitation or the change of nature of suit. The
relief claimed in the suit remained the same i.e. a decree
for specific performance of the contract for sale and by
amendment, no declaration has been sought for in respect E
of the instrument. So far as the question of limitation is
concerned, the suit, admittedly, was filed within the period
of limitation. Therefore, even if the amendment of plaint
or agreement is allowed, that will relate back to the filing
of the suit which was filed within the. period of limitation. F
[Paras 11-13) [672-E; 673-A, B, C, D, E, F, G)
Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Joolaganti
Venkatasubba Rao Veerasamy & Co AIR (1921) Mad 664 -
affirmed.
G
2. The High Court ought not to have interfered with
~ " the order of the trial court when the order of the trial court
was passed on sound consideration of law and facts and
when it cannot be said that the order of the trial court
was either without jurisdiction or perverse or arbitrary. H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 3 S.C.R.

A [Para 14] [675-F, G]
.• ...
3. The court may, in its discretion, allow an
application for amendment of the plaint even where the
relief sought to be added by amendment is allegedly
barred by limitation. It is well settled that allowing and
B rejecting an application for amendment of a plaint is
really the discretion of the Court and amendment of the
plaint also should not be refused on technical grounds.
..
[Para 15] [676-A, B, C, DJ
c Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material
Supply, Gurgaon AIR (1969) SC 1267; Pankaja & Anr. v.
Ye/lappa (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 415 - relied
on.
4. The question of limitation would not arise when
D mis-description of the name of the original plaintiff or mis-
description of the suit property arose in a particular case. .. •
Apart from that in the present case, although, the relief
claimed before as well as after the amendment remained
the same i.e. a decree for specific performance of the
E contract for sale, even then, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court should not have
interfered with the discretion used by the trial court in
allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.
[Para 15] [676-F, G; 677-A]
F CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1673
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SB
G Civil Writ Petition No. 1412 of 2005.
B.D. Sharma, N. Vyas, Dr. Aaray Wingaiah, Vidya Sagar
and Bharathi for the Appellant. , ,.
Sushi\ Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain and H.D. Thanvi (for
H Pratibha Jain) for the Respondents.
PURAN RAM v. BHAGURAM AND ANR. 667
~
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
"( ~

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal relates to rejection of an application for
amendment of plaint in a suit for specific performance of the
agreement for sale passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at B
Jodhpur by which the High Court, in the exercise of its power
... under Article 227 of the Constitution, had reversed the order of
the Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner allowing the
application for amendment of the plaint.
3. On 19th of December, 1997, the plaintiff/appellant had c
filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell relating
to 25 bighas of irrigated agricultural land in Chak No. 3 SLM,
being Square No. 112/63, Colonization Tehsil Pungal, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan (hereinafter called as i§the suit property(')
and for permanent injunction. D
~ .
4. The case made out by the appellant in the plaint is to
the following effect :-
5. The appellant had entered into an agreement for sale to
purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On 12th E
of April, 1991, he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/" to the vendor
Bhaguram. By virtue of the payment, Bhaguram, the respondent
No.1, has put the appellant in possession of the suit property
-i ;a and has also agreed to receive a further .sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
from the appellant within a period of 30 days and thereafter F
execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. On 12th of April,
1991, Bhaguram received the balance consideration money of
Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant and executed an agreement
to sell and a power of attorney in his favour. Since the respondent
No.1 had failed to execute the sale deed after receiving the G
balance .consideration money of Rs.1,50,000/-, the appellant
was constrained to file the suit for specific performance of
'~ contract for sale and for permanent injunction in respect of the
suit property. It is to be noted that the appellant in his plaint has
described the suit property as falling in Chak No.3 SSM, Tehsil
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

•
• l"
A Pungal, District Bikaner.
6. When the description of a part of the suit property was
found to be a mutual mistake, the appellant filed an application
for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code
of Civil Procedure on 20th of March, 1998 seeking to amend
B the plaint and give the description of the suit property as Chak
No.3 SLM instead of Chak No.3 SSM. Initially, the application
for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking to correct a part ...
of the description of the suit property only in the plaint. The
application for amendment of the plaint was contested by the
c respondent No.1. However, by an order dated 29th of August,
1998, the prayer for amendment of the plaint was rejected by
the trial court on the ground that the plaint was filed on the basis
of the agreement to sell dated 12th of April, 1991 and since no
prayer was made for getting the agreement amended, the
D application for amendment of the plaint could not be allowed.
Feeling aggrieved, a revision petition was filed, but later on, the + •

same was rejected as withdrawn with liberty to raise the question
in appeal against the final judgment, if such occasion arose.
Since the agreement entered into by the parties contained a
E wrong description relating to the suit property, the appellant filed
another application for amendment of the plaint seeking
amendment this time not only of the plaint but also the agreement
to sell dated 12th of April, 1991 so as to describe the suit property
as Chak No.3 SLM, later on converted to Chak No. 3 SWM in
• ...
F place of Chak No.3 SSM. In the said application for amendment,
the appellant sought amendment of the agreement on the ground
that under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, he was
entitled to seek amendment in the plaint as well as in the
agreement by which the nature of the suit, which is a suit for '
specific performance of the contract for sale could not be said
G ~

to have been changed. This application for amendment of the
plaint was also contested by the respondent No.1 contending,
)-
inter alia. that if such amendment was allowed, the nature and , "
character of the suit wo~iid be changed and also that the
appellant cannot u•: i:.:::"''tted to amend the agreement in
H
PURAN RAM v. BHAGURAM AND ANR. 669
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
~ ' ..
a
question in suit for specific performance of contract for sale. A
By an order dated 25th of February, 2005, the Second Additional
District Judge, Bikaner, allowed the application for amendment
of the plaint. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the
Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner, the respondent No.2,
who has purchased the suit property from the respondent No.1, B
filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging
... the aforesaid order allowing the application for amendment of
~

the plaint.
7. By an order dated 16th of May, 2005, which is now
impugned in this appeal, the High Court allowed the petition c
and set asiqe the order of the trial court, inter alia, on the following
grounds:-
[i] Relief sought for by the appellant by way of amendment
of the plaint could not be allowed in view of the expiry of
... the period of limitation;
D

[ii] If such amendment was allowed, the nature of the suit
would change from a suit for specific performance of
contract for sale to a suit for declaration which was not
permissible; E
8. On the aforesaid findings, the High Court, as noted herein
earlier, had rejected the application for amendment of the plaint
~
by passing the impugned judgment. The said order is now under
-;.
challenge before us by way of a special leave petition in respect
of which leave has already been granted. It may be stated at F
this juncture that the trial court in its discretion had allowed the
application for amendment of plaint. In that situation, it needs to
be seen whether it was open to the High Court in the exercise
of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution to reverse the
said order and reject the application for amendment of plaint. G
We will come to this question later after we deal with the question
~ ~
whether the application for amendment of plaint in the facts and
circumstances of the case and on the allegations made in the
plaint could be rejected.
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 3 S.C.R.

A 9. Hear<:! the learned counsel for the parties and examined
....
the impugned order and the order of the trial court as well as the
application for amendment of the plaint and other materials on
record. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of amendment sought for, we are not in
8 agreement with the order passed by the High Court rejecting
the application for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that in view
of the nature of amendment sought for in the plaint as well as in
.
the agreement, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the
c prayer for amendment of the plaint and the agreement. He further
contended that in view of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, it was open to the appellant to apply for amendment of
the agreement for sale. The learned counsel for the appellant
also contended that since the prayer for amendment of the plaint
was only to correct a part of the description of the suit property
D
in the agreement for sale as well as in the plaint, the court was
not justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the ••
plaint and the agreement. Further, by such amendment of the
plaint, neither the nature and character of the suit would be
changed nor the question of limitation could arise. According to
E the learned counsel for the appellant, the suit would remain a
suit for specific·performance of the contract for sale and only a
part of the description of the suit property would be changed,
as noted herein earlier, by way of such amendment. The learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, however, sought to argue ....
F that the amendment of the agreement, even so far as a part of
the description of the suit property is concerned, can not be
allowed in a suit for specific performance of the contract for
sale. According to him, Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act
clearly expresses the intention that if the description of the suit
G property needs to be corrected, it can only be corrected by
instituting a suit for correction or rectification of the deed. He
has also drawn our attention to sub-section (4) of Section 26
and submitted that no relief for rectification of an instrument ' ,..
should be granted to any party under section 26 of the Act unless
H it has been specifically claimed. So far as the prayer for
PURAN RAM v. BHAGURAM AND ANR. 671 ' .
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
. "(
. )
amendment of the plaint is concerned, the learned counsel for A
the respondent contended that the prayer for amendment of the
plaint would be barred by limitation as the agreement was
entered into on 12th of April, 1991 and the amendment of the
plaint was sought on 9th of May, 2003. Accordingly, neither the
prayer for amendment of the agreement, nor the prayer for 8
amendment of the plaint could be allowed even though the said
.... amendment relates only to the change of a part of the description
~
of the suit property.
10. Keeping the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties in mind, let us now consider whether the c
prayer for amendment of the plaint and the agreement, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, could be allowed or not.
So far as the prayer for correcting or rectifying the agreement in
respect of a part of the description of the suit property is
concerned, it would be appropriate to look into the provisions D
~ -.j
made in Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Chapter 3
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 specifically deals with
rectification of instruments. Section 26 provides as to when an
instrument may be rectified and reads as under: -
"26. When instrument may be rectified. -(1) When, E
through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, a contract
or other instrument in writing (not being the articles of
association of a company to which the Companies Act,
~ . 1956, applies) does not express their real intention, then-
F
(a) either party or his representative in interest may
institute a suit to have the instrument rectified; or
(b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which any right
arising under the instrument is in issue, claim in his
pleading that the instrument be rectified; or G
(c) a defendant in any such suit as is referred to in
clause (b), ~y,jo addition to any other defence open
'I '
to him,.:A~tt'i~~tif.ication of the instrument.
. -··
.-~
.'
(2) If, in any suit1n which a contract,or other instrument H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A is sought to be rectified under sub-section (1 ), the court
. • ,...

finds that the instrument, through fraud or mistake, does
not express the real intention of the parties, the court
may, in its discretion, direct rectification of the instrument
so as to express that intention, so far as this can be done
B without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in
good faith and for value.
(3) A contract in writing may first be rectified, and then if ~

I"
the party claiming rectification has so prayed in his
pleading and the court thinks fit, may be specifically
c enforced.

(4) No relief for the rectification of an instrument shall be
granted to any party under this section unless it has
been specifically claimed;
D Provided that where a party has not claimed any such
relief in his pleading, the court shall. at any stage of the ~ ~
proceeding, allow him to amend the pleading on such
terms as may be just for including such claim."
11. After closely examining the provisions made under
E
Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, we do not find any
difficulty to hold that in a suit for specific performance of contract
for sale, it is permissible to amend a part of the description of
the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the agreement.

F
Section 26 clearly says as to when a contract or other instrument . ~

can be rectified and provides that when through fraud or a mutual
mistake of the parties, the agreement in writing does not express
their real intention, it is open to the parties to apply for
amendment of the instrument. It provides that when such a
situation arises, then-
G
(a) either party or his representative in interest may
institute a suit to have the instrument rectified, or

(b) the plaintiff may in any surui;µ,vhich any right arising ' I"

under the instrurnent is 1n ·sst.f.e.'.Cta"rn
. ~ , 1ilh1s pleading that
H the ins+•ump'l' ~o '."'<;'.·fj:;rj
PURAN RAM v. BHAGURAM AND ANR. 673
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
"1
••
12. A reading of these two conditions made under Section A
26 of the Act would amply show that either party may institute a
suit to have the instrument rectified or a party who has already
filed a suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in
issue may claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified.
So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it cannot B
be doubted that the main issue in the suit for specific
.. ... performance of the contract for sale was relating to the
agreement for sale in which a part of the description of the suit
property was wrongly given by mutual mistake and therefore,
needed to be amended. Section 26, of course, says that it would c
be open to a party to institute a suit for correcting the description
of the suit property, but the proviso to Section 26 clearly permits
that where a party has not claimed any such relief in his pleading,
the court shall at any stage of the proceeding allow him to amend
the plaint on such terms as may be just for including such claim.
D
From a plain reading of the provisions under Section 26 of the
~ ~
Act, there is no reason why the prayer for amendment of the
agreement to correct a part of the description of the suit property
from Chak No. 3 SSM to Chak No. 3 SLM, later on converted to
Chak No. 3 SWM could not be granted. In our view, it is only a
correction or rectification of a part of the description of the suit E
property, which cannot involve either the question of limitation
or the change of nature of suit. In our view, the suit shall remain
a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale and a
... .. separate independent suit is not needed to be filed when the
proviso to Section 26 itself clearly permits either party to correct F
or rectify the description of the suit property not only in the plaint
but also in the agreement itself. So far as the question of limitation
is concerned, the agreement was entered into on 12th of April,
1991 and the suit. admittedly, was filed within the period of
limitation. Therefore, even if the amendment of plaint or G
agreement is allowed, that will relate back to the filing of the suit
.. which was filed within the period of limitation. So far as the
submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the
rectification of the agreement cannot be permitted is concerned,
we are of the view that Section 26(4) of the Act only says that no H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A relief for rectification of instrument shall be granted unless it is .• ,... '
specifically claimed. However, proviso to Section 26, as noted
herein earlier, makes it clear that when such relief has not been
claimed specifically, the court shall at any stage of the
proceeding allow such party to amend the pleading as may be
B thought fit and proper to include such claim. Therefore, we are
not in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent
that section 26 would stand in the way of allowing the application
for amendment of the agreement. The views expressed by us
find support in a decision of the Madras High Court in Raipur
"
c Manufacturing Co., Ltd Vs. Joo/aganti Venkatasubba
RaoVeerasamy &Co [AIR 1921Mad664], wherein it was held
that where in the course of a suit for damages for breach of
contract, the plaintiff contends that there is a clerical error in the
document embodying the contract, it is not always necessary
that a separate suit should have been brought for rectification
0
of the document and it is open to the court in a proper case to
allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint and ask for the necessary
rectification. As noted herein earlier, the learned counsel for the
respondent contended before us that the appellant could not
get specific performance of the contract for sale unless he sued
E for rectification of the agreement for sale. We are unable to
accept this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
for the simple reason that in this case, by filing the application
for amendment in the suit for specific performance of the contract
for sale, the appellant had sought the rectification of the
• •
F agreement also. It is sufficient to observe that it was not
necessary for the appellant to file a separate suit for that purpose
as contended by 'the learned counsel for the respondent. It is
open to the appellant to claim the relief of rectification of the
instrument in the instant suit. The amendment, in our view, in the
G agreement was a formal one and there was no reason why such
amendment could not be allowed.
13. The other ground on which the High Court has refused
to permit the appellant to amend the plaint is that if the
amendment is allowed, the suit shall be converted into a suit for
H
PURAN RAM v. BHAGURAM AND ANR. 675
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
• ~
declaration. We are unable to accept this view of the High Court. A
In our view, the suit is a suit for specific performance of the
contract for sale simplicitor and only a part of the description of
the suit property in the agreement as well as in the plaint was
. sought to be corrected or amended by the appellant by filing
the application for amendment of the plaint. If we are permitted B
to look into the description of the suit property from the original
... plaint as well as from the application for amendment, it would
be clear that the description of the suit property has been kept
intact excepting that instead of Chak No. 3 SSM, Chak No. 3
SLM, later on converted to Chak No. 3 SWM, has been sought c
to be replaced. Therefore, it is difficult to conceive that by such
amendment, that is, instead of Chak No.3 SSM, if Chak No.3
SLM, later on converted to SWM is substituted, either the
description of the suit property or the nature of the suit would
change. This is only a change in a part of the description of the
D
suit property, which was wrongly described by mutual mistake.
' ~ Therefore, in our view, this change in a part of the description of
the suit property in the plaint cannot convert the suit for specific
performance of the contract to a suit for declaration. In any view
of the matter, the relief claimed in the suit remained the same
i.e. a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale E
and by amendment, no declaration has been sought for in
respect of the instrument.
,,
14. We may now take into consideration as to whether the
.. High Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the F
Constitution, was justified in rejecting the application for
amendment of the plaint, which, in the discretion of the trial court,
was allowed. We are of the view that the High Court ought not to
have interfered with the order of the trial court when the order of
the trial court was passed on sound consideration of law and
G
facts and when it cannot be said that the order of the trial court
was either without jurisdiction or perverse or arbitrary.
15. Before parting with this judgment, we may deal with
the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that
the application for amendment could not be allowed inasmuch H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A as the same was barred by limitation. We are unable to accept
.• ,_
this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. In
this regard, we may observe that the court may, in its discretion,
allow an application for amendment of the plaint even where
the relief sought to be added by amendment is allegedly barred
s by limitation. This view was also expressed by this Court in
Pankaja & Anr. Vs. Ye/Jappa (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. [(2004)
6 SCC 415]. In that decision, it was held that there is no absolute
"
rule that in such a case, the amendment should not be allowed
and the discretion of the court in that regard depends on the
c facts and circumstances of the case and such discretion has to
be exercised on a judicious evaluation thereof It was further
held in that decision that an amendment. which subserves the
ultimate cause of justice and avoids further l1tigat1on, should be
allowed. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court
that allowing and rejecting an application for amendment of a
0
plaint is really the d1scret1on of the Court and amendment of the
plaint also should not be refused on technical grounds. In this
connection reliance can be placed on a decision of this court in
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material
Supply, Gurgaon [AIR 1969 SC 1267 ]. In paragraph 8 of the
E said decision this Court observed that "since the name in
which the action was instituted was merely a
misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of
limitation arises; the plaint must be deemed on
amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real . ...
F plaintiff on the date on which it was originally instituted."
A reading of this observation would amply clear the position
that no question of limitation shall arise when mis-description
of the name of the original plaintiff or mis-description of the
suit property arose in a particular case. Apart from that in the
G present case, although, the relief claimed before as well as after
the amendment remained the same i.e. a decree for specific
performance of the contract for sale, even then, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as noted herein earlier, we
do not find why the High Court should have interfered with the
H discretion used by the trial court in allowing the application for
PURAN RAM v. BHAGURAM AND ANR 677

... .
•
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]

amendment of the plaint. A
16. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to sustain
the impugned order of the High Court. Accordingly, the impugned
order of the High Court is set aside <:ind that of the Second
Additional District Judge, Bikaner is restored. The application
for amendment of the plaint. as prayed for, is thus allowed. It will 8
be open to the respondents to file their written statement if the
... same has not yet been filed and if the same has been filed, it
will be open to them to file an additional written statement within
a period of one month from the date of supply of a copy of this
order to the trial court. C

17. The appc;a! is thus allowed to the extent indicated
above. Them wi!i be no order as to costs.
"~
u.·..::i. Appeal partly allowed.
D

.. 1