IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4498 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of decision: December 22, 2008
Harbans Singh ... Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Kumar ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent
judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court reversing
the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by which the
suit of the appellant for specific performance was decreed and,
consequently dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation.
The learned Lower Appellate Court relied upon the fact
that the date fixed for sale was 26.12.1989 and that though
originally the appellant’s suit for mandatory injunction was
instituted on 30.05.1992, however, application for amendment
was filed only in the year 1994 and the same was allowed subject
to the right of the respondent to claim bar of limitation. In the
view of the learned Lower Appellate Court, the application for
amendment for claiming specific relief having been filed more
RSA No.4498 of 2005 -2-
than 3 years after the date fixed, the suit of the appellant would
have to be barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant
has not been able to refer to any judgment by which this view
can be held to be wrong. Learned counsel has argued that
admittedly there was no learned Judge in the Court right from
June 1992 to 1994 and that as soon as the Presiding Officer was
appointed, application for the amendment was moved. I am
afraid, this argument does not cut any ice. Absence of Presiding
Officer was no bar to the filing of an application for amendment.
In Tarlok Singh vs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal reported as
1996 PLJ page 237, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“Sh. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the
respondent, contended that since the respondent had
refused performance the suit must be deemed to have
been filed on 23.12.1987 and, therefore, when the
amendment was allowed, it would relate back to the
date of filing the suit which was filed within 3 years
from the date of the refusal. Accordingly, the suit is
not barred by limitation. Sh. U.R. Lalit, learned senior
counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of
the liberty given by the High Court the appellant is
entitled to raise the plea of limitation. The question is
as to when the limitation began to run? In view of the
admitted position that the contract was to be
performed within 15 days after the injunction was
vacated, the limitation began to run on 6.4.1986. In
view of the position that the suit for perpetual
injunction was converted into one for specific
performance by order dated 25.8.1989, the suit must
be deemed to have been instituted on 25.08.1989,
and the suit was clearly barred by limitation. We find
RSA No.4498 of 2005 -3-force in the stand of the appellant.”
In this view of the matter, no infirmity can be found in this
appeal on the question of limitation. The appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
December 22, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE