Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lajja Ram And Others vs Chaman Lal And Others on 8 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064517
SAO-18-2024(O&M)
1
147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
SAO-18-2024(O&M)
Date of decision : 08.05.2024
Lajja Ram and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Chaman Lal and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Abhay Chauhan, Advocate and
Mr. Dewak Grover, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. This second appeal against order has been filed by the defendants
to challenge the correctness of the First Appellate Court's order remitting the
matter back to the trial Court after allowing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint.
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. The respondents (plaintiffs before the trial Court) filed a suit for
possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The
defendants contested the suit on various other grounds including the ground
that the plaintiffs have not sought declaration with regard to unilateral
communication dated 31.05.2010 by the defendants for cancelling the
agreement. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit only on the ground that
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064517
SAO-18-2024(O&M)
the plaintiffs have failed to seek relief of declaration with regard to notice
dated 31.05.2010. The plaintiffs filed the first appeal and also filed an
application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for
permission to amend the plaint to formally seek declaration with respect to
notice dated 31.05.2010. The First Appellate Court has allowed the application
and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for fresh decision.
4. Learned counsel representing the appellants contends that the First
Appellate Court erred in remanding the case back to the trial Court only after
allowing the amendment. He further submits that the plaintiffs have been
permitted to challenge the correctness of cancellation notice dated 31.05.2010,
after the prescribed period for limitation has elapsed. He relied upon the
judgment passed in 'I.S. Sikander (D) by Lrs v. K. Subramani (SC)', 2014(1)
R.C.R. (Civil) 236.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
6. In fact, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.S.
Sikander's case (supra) has already been explained in a subsequent judgment
in 'Manickam @ Thandapani and another vs.Vasantha', 2022 (2) RCR (C)
862. and 'Mrs. A.Kanthamani vs. Mrs. Nasreen Ahmed', 2017(4) SCC 654.
7. This Court in 'Surinder Mohan Batra and others vs. Gurbinder
Pal Singh Tiwana and another', RSA No.1770 of 2014 decided on
03.08.2023, has also held that the judgment passed in I.S. Sikander's case
(supra) is in the peculiar facts of the aforesaid case.
8. Moreover, the communication dated 31.05.2010, is an unilateral
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064517
SAO-18-2024(O&M)
communication by the defendants to the plaintiffs. It is not a contract which is
required to be avoided by filing the suit for declaration. In any case, the
amendment allowed by the First Appellate Court is only formal in nature
because of a technical objection taken by the defendants. Hence, the question
of limitation would not arise in the present case.
9. Learned counsel representing the appellants does not dispute that
the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit only on the objection of the
defendants with regard to failure to challenge the cancellation of agreement to
sell vide notice dated 31.05.2010. Once, the formal defect in the suit stood
cured the objection of the defendants pales into insignificance. The trial Court
has not discussed the case on merits. Hence, the First Appellate Court was
justified in remitting the matter back to the trial Court.
10. Consequently, finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed.
11. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
08.05.2024 JUDGE
neeraj
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
