(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal by the defendant is directed against the order of the Patna high court allowing amendment of the plaint in a suit filed by the respondent. The said suit is based on an agreement dated 25/3/1985 executed by the appellant for sale of land belonging to him for a sum of rs 3,01,000. A sum of Rs. 501. 00 was deposited as earnest money by the respondent. Under the said agreement the parties agreed that the balance amount of consideration would be paid and the sale deed would be executed and registered within a period of three months. On 21/12/1990, the respondent filed the suit in question wherein he sought the following reliefs:
(3.) Shri Rajeev Dhavan, the leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that on the date of filing of the application for amendment a suit for specific performance of the contract was barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in Article 54 of the Limitation act, 1963 and the High court was in error in allowing the amendment and to convert a suit for declaration into a suit for specific performance after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the suit for specific performance. In support of his submission Shri Dhavan has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Muni Lal v. Oriental Fire and General insurance Co. Ltd. wherein this court has upheld the order disallowing amendment of the plaint and has laid down that under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC an amendment cannot be allowed in cases after the suit was barred by limitation during the pendency of the proceedings.