HARSHARAN SINGH Vs. SURINDER KAUR NARULA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 16th March, 2015 whereby the applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint and condonation of delay in filing the application for amendment were dismissed, the Petitioner Harsharan Singh prefers the present petition.

(2.) Sardar Harsharan Singh filed Suit No.275 of 2014 on 23rd April, 2011 seeking cancellation of Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit and possession letter dated 6th February, 1997. A joint written statement was filed by the Defendant Nos. 1, 7 and 8 on 11th February, 2013 stating that the documents dated 6th February, 1997 were taken by the Petitioner/Plaintiff and he executed another bunch of documents in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 22nd June, 1999 and 26th March, 2001. On the basis of the written statement it was thus prayed that the Petitioner/Plaintiff wants to incorporate the relief of declaration and cancellation of Agreement to Sell etc. dated 22nd June, 1999 and 26th March, 2001.

(3.) In reply to the application the Respondents/Defendants stated that on filing of the suit on 23rd April, 2011 they filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC along with the documents dated 22nd June, 1999 and 26th March, 2001 on 7th September, 2011. Thus the Petitioner/Plaintiff had the knowledge of these documents on 7th September, 2011 even if not prior thereto and the application seeking amendment along with the application for condonation of delay are required to be dismissed as time period prescribed for the relief of declaration/cancellation of documents is three years from the date of knowledge. The date of knowledge to the Plaintiff Harsharan Singh atleast being from 7th September, 2011 the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the said date. Thus the Petitioner/Plaintiff cannot be allowed to incorporate the time barred relief in the garb of Order VI Rule 17 CPC.