IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5713-2019 (O&M) Kim Infrastructures and Developers Ltd. . . . . Pe22oner Vs. M/s K.B. Machine and Factory and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 23.07.2026 Pronounced on: 27.07.2026 Pronounced fully/opera2ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the pe""oner. Mr. S.S. Behl, Senior Advocate with Ms. Raageshwari Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Pe""oner herein is the plain"ff in civil suit bearing CIS No.CS- 634-2016 "tled “Kim infrastructures vs. M/s KB Machines and others” pend- ing before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. Pe""oner is ag- grieved by order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure P-11), whereby trial Court has dismissed its applica"on under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the pe""oner-plain"ff ins"tuted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18.05.2012 exe- cuted by respondent No.1-firm through its partners, namely respondent Nos.2 to 4, in respect of the suit property for a total sale considera"on of ₹7,63,75,000/-. An amount of ₹1,52,75,000/- was paid as earnest money at SARITA RANI 2026.07.28 15:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-5713-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:103082 the "me of execu"on of the agreement and a further amount of ₹76,00,000/- was allegedly paid on 01.12.2012. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 16.03.2013. Alleging con"nuous readiness and willingness to perform its part of the contract and asser"ng that the defendants avoided execu"on of the sale deed despite service of legal no"ce dated 25.01.2014, the pe""oner ins"tuted the present suit seeking specific performance. In the alterna"ve, the pe""oner also claimed recovery of ₹4,57,50,000/-, compris- ing refund of the earnest money along with damages. 3. The defendants contested the suit by dispu"ng the plain"ff's readiness and willingness and denied its en"tlement to the discre"onary relief of specific performance. 4. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.2 Gian Singh expired. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 moved applica"on seeking their impleadment as his legal representa"ves on the strength of a registered Will dated 23.08.2007. The pe""oner opposed the applica"on on the ground that all the natural legal heirs had not been disclosed. Nevertheless, the trial Court allowed the applica"on and impleaded respondent Nos.3 and 4 as legal representa"ves of the deceased partner. 5. Subsequently, the defendants filed an applica"on (Annexure P-4) expressing their willingness to honour the agreement and prayed for passing of a decree in favour of the plain"ff. 6. Instead of pressing for adjudica"on of that applica"on, the pe""oner moved an applica"on (Annexure P-5) under Order XI Rules 1, 12 and 14 CPC seeking interrogatories regarding the remaining legal heirs of deceased Gian Singh. The said applica"on was dismissed by the trial Court. The pe""oner challenged that order before this Court by filing CR No.1379 of 2019, which came to be disposed of vide order 04.07.2019 (Annexure P-6), gran"ng liberty to the pe""oner to raise all objec"ons regarding execu"on of the sale deed before the trial Court while considering the defendants' applica"on seeking decree on admission. SARITA RANI 2026.07.28 15:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-5713-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:103082 7.1 ThereaEer, the pe""oner filed the applica"on (Annexure P-9) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking extensive amendment of the plaint. The amendment applica"on proceeded on the premise that a dispute regarding the validity of the Will executed by deceased Gian Singh was pending between his legal heirs. According to the pe""oner, such li"ga"on created uncertainty regarding the defendants' "tle and exposed the pe""oner to future li"ga"on in the event a decree for specific performance was granted. On that basis, the pe""oner sought:
dele"on of the relief of specific performance;
dele"on of the pleadings regarding readiness and willingness;
incorpora"on of facts rela"ng to the li"ga"on amongst the legal heirs;
conversion of the suit into one seeking only recovery of the earnest money and damages; and
consequen"al amendment in valua"on and court fee. 7.2 The pe""oner asserted that these amendments had become necessary owing to subsequent events and were essen"al for avoiding mul"plicity of proceedings. 8. The defendants opposed the applica"on contending that the amendment was merely an aGempt to wriggle out of a concluded contract aEer they themselves had offered to suffer a decree for specific performance. 9. The trial Court accepted the objec"ons of the defendants and dismissed the applica"on by the impugned order (Annexure P-11). 10. Assailing the above order, learned counsel for the pe""oner contends that the learned trial Court erred in declining the amendment sought under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is submiGed that subsequent developments during the pendency of the suit, par"cularly the dispute amongst the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2 regarding the validity of his Will, cast a cloud over the "tle of the suit property. It is further argued SARITA RANI 2026.07.28 15:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-5713-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:103082 that upon demarca"on, the area available on the spot was found to be less than what had been agreed to be sold. In these circumstances, the pe""oner was jus"fied in seeking to abandon the relief of specific performance and pursue only the alterna"ve relief of recovery of earnest money and damages in terms of Sec"on 21 of the Specific Relief Act. Reliance has been placed upon Lokesh and others v. Rameshwar Tyagi, 2018(1) RCR (Civil) 248; Jagdish Singh v. Na$hu Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 647; Shri Orlando Dias and another v. Addi,onal Development Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu, 2004 (2) Goa L.R. 207; and Life Insurance Corpora,on of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2022 AIR (SC) 4256. 11. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the proposed amendment is a mala fide aGempt to wriggle out of the contractual obliga"ons aEer the respondents had themselves expressed willingness to perform the agreement and sought a decree for specific performance. It is argued that if the pe""oner intended merely to relinquish the relief of specific performance, the appropriate course was to invoke Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC and not to seek amendment of the plaint by introducing an altogether different case. It is further contended that the alleged dispute regarding the "tle no longer survives, as the suit as well as the appeal challenging the Will of deceased Gian Singh already stand dismissed. The respondents also contend that the plea regarding deficiency in the area of the property is an aEerthought and does not jus"fy altera"on of the nature of the suit. Reliance has been placed upon Smt. Latha v. Sri Rakesh and others, Law Finder Doc Id #2262462, to contend that such an amendment, which fundamentally changes the nature of the suit, is legally impermissible. 12. This Court has given its thoughHul considera"on to the rival submissions and has carefully perused the record. 13. The execu"on of the agreement to sell dated 18.05.2012, the ownership of respondent No.1-firm over the suit property and the ins"tu"on of the suit for specific performance are undisputed. Equally undisputed is the SARITA RANI 2026.07.28 15:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-5713-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:103082 fact that in the original plaint, the pe""oner unequivocally asserted its con"nuous readiness and willingness to perform its part of the contract and sought a decree for specific performance, with recovery of earnest money and damages only in the alterna"ve. 14. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No.2 Gian Singh expired. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were brought on record as his legal representa"ves on the strength of a registered Will dated 23.08.2007. It is also not disputed that a civil suit challenging the said Will was ins"tuted by the daughters of deceased Gian Singh. However, the said suit had already been dismissed by the Civil Court and, during the course of hearing before this Court, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that even the appeal preferred against the said judgment has since been dismissed. Consequently, the very founda"on, on which the pe""oner alleges a defect in the "tle of the respondents, no longer survives. 15. The chronology of events assumes considerable significance. Before the pe""oner sought amendment of the plaint, the respondents themselves had moved an applica"on before the trial Court expressing their willingness to honour the agreement and praying that the suit be decreed in favour of the pe""oner. Instead of pressing for adjudica"on of that applica"on, the pe""oner chose to ini"ate proceedings under Order XI CPC seeking interrogatories regarding the legal heirs of deceased Gian Singh. Upon dismissal of those applica"ons, the pe""oner approached this Court by way of Civil Revision No.1379 of 2019, which was disposed of on 04.07.2019 (Annexure P-6) by gran"ng liberty to the pe""oner to raise all objec"ons before the trial Court while considering the respondents' applica"on. Shortly thereaEer, the present applica"on for amendment of the plaint came to be filed. 16. The aforesaid sequence unmistakably indicates that the proposed amendment was not occasioned by any subsequent event fundamentally affec"ng the maintainability of the suit, but was prompted by SARITA RANI 2026.07.28 15:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-5713-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:103082 a change in the pe""oner's own approach towards enforcement of the agreement. 17. It is well seGled that although amendments of pleadings are to be liberally allowed for determining the real controversy between the par"es, the jurisdic"on under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is nevertheless discre"onary. An amendment cannot be permiGed, where it fundamentally changes the nature and character of the suit, introduces an altogether inconsistent case, or is found to be lacking in bona fides. 18. Examined on the touchstone of these seGled principles, the amendment sought by the pe""oner cannot be regarded as a mere elabora"on of the exis"ng pleadings. Rather, it seeks to completely alter the founda"on on which the suit was ins"tuted. By the proposed amendment, the pe""oner intends to delete the principal relief of specific performance, delete the pleadings regarding readiness and willingness, introduce allega"ons regarding an alleged defect in "tle and convert the suit substan"ally into one confined to recovery of money and damages. Such amendment is not merely consequen"al or clarificatory but amounts to subs"tu"on of the very basis of the suit. 19. It is true that there is no legal prohibi"on against a plain"ff abandoning the relief of specific performance. However, the right to relinquish a relief cannot be equated with an unfeGered right to rewrite the en"re plaint by introducing an altogether different factual and legal founda"on. If the pe""oner intended merely to abandon the relief of specific performance, the Code provides an appropriate procedure under Order XXIII for relinquishment of such claim. What is sought in the present case is something materially different, namely, conversion of the suit itself on the basis of allega"ons which were never part of the original cause of ac"on. 20. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish v. Na$hu Singh (supra) in fact, for"fies this dis"nc"on. The Supreme Court in he abovesaid case; categorically held that while a liberal approach is warranted, where compensa"on is sought in addi"on to or in subs"tu"on of specific SARITA RANI 2026.07.28 15:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-5713-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:103082 performance without abandoning the principal relief, a different and less liberal standard applies where the amendment seeks conversion of a suit for specific performance into one for damages for breach of contract. The present case squarely falls within the laGer category. 21. Likewise, the reliance placed upon Life Insurance Corpora,on of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., (supra) is misconceived. In the said case, the plain"ffs con"nued to pursue the relief of specific performance and merely sought enhancement of the amount claimed towards compensa"on on account of escala"on in the value of the property during prolonged pendency of the li"ga"on. The Supreme Court reiterated the liberal approach governing amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in such circumstances. The present case stands on an en"rely different foo"ng. Here, the pe""oner seeks not enhancement of an exis"ng alterna"ve claim but dele"on of the principal relief itself together with all founda"onal pleadings suppor"ng that relief. The ra"o of the said judgment, therefore, has no applica"on to the facts of the present case. 22. The decision of this Court in Lokesh and others v. Rameshwar Tyagi (supra) is equally dis"nguishable. In that case, the vendor himself lacked a marketable "tle to the property and consequently the purchaser was held en"tled to seek refund of the earnest money. In the present case, however, there is no dispute whatsoever regarding the respondents' "tle at the "me of execu"on of the agreement or ins"tu"on of the suit. The dispute projected by the pe""oner arose only aEer the death of one of the partners and was founded upon inter se succession disputes amongst his legal heirs. Those proceedings have admiGedly culminated against the objectors. Consequently, the pe""oner cannot legi"mately contend that any subsis"ng defect in "tle survives so as to jus"fy abandonment of the principal relief. 23. Similarly, the judgment in Shri Orlando Dias v. The Addi,onal Development Commissioner (supra) arose in an altogether different factual context involving withdrawal of the relief of specific performance under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC and does not lay down that a plain"ff is en"tled, as of SARITA RANI 2026.07.28 15:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR-5713-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:103082 right, to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by subs"tu"ng an en"rely new cause founded on subsequent events. 24. Viewed from any angle, therefore, the proposed amendment cannot be regarded as one necessary for determining the real controversy between the par"es. On the contrary, it seeks to subs"tute the original cause of ac"on by introducing a fundamentally inconsistent case. The subsequent events relied upon by the pe""oner have themselves ceased to survive and consequently furnish no legal jus"fica"on for permiMng such amendment. The exercise of discre"on by the trial Court in refusing the amendment is thus neither arbitrary nor perverse. 25. In exercise of supervisory jurisdic"on under Ar"cle 227 of the Cons"tu"on of India, interference is warranted only where the subordinate Court has acted without jurisdic"on, commiGed a patent error of law or exercised its discre"on perversely. The impugned order suffers from none of these infirmi"es. Rather, the learned trial Court has exercised its discre"on on sound judicial principles and in consonance with the seGled law governing amendment of pleadings. 26. Consequently, finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdic"onal error in the impugned order dated 13.08.2019, the present revision pe""on is dismissed. July 27, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes Whether reportable? : Yes Uploaded on: July 28, 2026 SARITA RANI 2026.07.28 15:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order