in a suit for mere injunction - an amendement of plaint can be allowed for specific performance of agreement of sale if it is in time Or.6, rule 17 CPC- amendment of plaint adding for specific perfromance of agreement of sale in a bare suit for injuntion - both courts dismissed the same - The reasoning given by the courts below is that the amendment would be barred by limitation if one is to calculate the limitation from the date of the agreement to sell or the date of the alleged cancellation, both of which took place in the years 2004 and 2005 respectively. Since the amendment was moved on 20.02.2014, the courts below have said that the amendment is time barred. - Apex court held that The Agreement to Sell dated 31.03.2004 itself states that a contingency has first to occur before the Agreement can be enforced, viz., a second appeal has to be disposed of. We are informed that the said second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn only on 12.12.2012. Therefore, at the earliest, limitation to enforce this Agreement would began only from the said date. The amendment made, therefore, cannot be said to be time barred. The amendment, therefore, stands allowed. The judgments passed by the courts below are set aside.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman 
1
IN�THE�SUPREME�COURT�OF�INDIA
�CIVIL� APPELLATE� JURISDICTION
� CIVIL�APPEAL�Nos.�10753�OF�2018
(Arising�out�of�SLP�(C)��No.�13459�of�2018)
��� �����������������
�� ���
KEWAL�KRISHAN ... � Appellant (s)
�
���������������������� Versus
DHARAMBIR�AND�ORS. ... � Respondent(s)
�������� O�R�D�E�R�
1) Delay condoned.
2) Leave granted.
3) An amendment application to a plaint which was filed for
injunction   simpliciter,   the   amendment   being   for   adding   the
relief   of   specific   performance,   has   been   turned   down   by   the
courts   below.     The   reasoning   given   by   the   courts   below   is
that the amendment would be barred by limitation if one is to
calculate   the   limitation   from   the   date   of   the   agreement   to
sell   or   the   date   of   the   alleged   cancellation,   both   of   which
took   place   in   the   years   2004   and   2005   respectively.     Since
the amendment was moved on 20.02.2014, the courts below have
said that the amendment is time barred.
4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the   view   that   this   is   not   correct.     The   Agreement   to   Sell
dated   31.03.2004   itself   states   that   a   contingency   has   first
to occur before the Agreement can be enforced, viz., a second
appeal has to be disposed of.   We are informed that the said

2
second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn only on 12.12.2012.
Therefore,   at   the   earliest,   limitation   to   enforce   this
Agreement would began only from the said date.  The amendment
made, therefore, cannot be said to be time barred.
5) The amendment, therefore, stands allowed.  The judgments
passed by the courts below are set aside.
6) With these observations, the appeal is allowed.
�
����.......................J.
                                           ��������������(ROHINTON�FALI�NARIMAN)
�.........................J.
��������� �������������������(NAVIN�SINHA)
�
���������
New�Delhi,
Dated:�October�26,�2018.������������

3
ITEM NO.45               COURT NO.8               SECTION IV-B
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  13459/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  28-11-2017
in CR No. 8141/2014 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At
Chandigarh)
KEWAL KRISHAN                                      Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
DHARAMBIR & ORS.                                   Respondent(s)
(Relief:-Permanent Injunction)
Date : 26-10-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Rohit Vats, Adv.
Mr. I.C. Sharma, Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shish Pal Laler, Adv.
Mr. Sonit Sinhmar, Adv.
                   Mr. Devesh Kumar Tripathi, AOR
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(MANAV SHARMA)                           (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                 BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)