Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court

"Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act clearly says as to when a contract or other instrument can be rectified and provides that when through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, the agreement in writing does not express their real intention, it is open to the parties to apply for amendment of the instrument." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 03, 2026, held that a plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract is entitled to amend the plaint and the underlying agreement to rectify a misdescription of the suit property.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the court is mandated to allow such amendments at any stage of the proceedings to ensure the real intention of the parties is expressed, provided the original suit was filed within the period of limitation.

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated January 05, 2016, executed by the deceased Defendant No. 1. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff discovered that the property description in the Agreement and the plaint was incorrect due to an inadvertent error and misrepresentation, which the plaintiff termed a "mutual mistake." Consequently, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the property description and include a prayer for rectification of the Agreement under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act.

The primary question before the court was whether the plaintiff could be permitted to amend the plaint to correct the description of the suit property and seek rectification of the Agreement to Sell years after the institution of the suit. The court also considered whether such an amendment would change the nature of the suit or be barred by the law of limitation.

Court’s Observations on Additional Documents

Court Explains Scope Of Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC

While dealing with an application to bring a Settlement Agreement on record as an additional document, the Court noted that under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC, leave can be granted if the plaintiff satisfies the court that the document was not in their possession despite due diligence. The bench observed that the Settlement Agreement was executed in 2025, long after the suit was filed in 2018, and thus could not have been produced earlier.

Genuineness Of Documents Is Matter Of Trial

The Court emphasized that at the stage of granting leave to place additional documents on record, it is not required to pronounce on the correctness or genuineness of the documents. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sudhir Kumar, the bench noted that the evidentiary value or relevancy of the document is a consideration alien to the stage of placing it on record, and such questions must be decided during the trial.

"The Court is therefore, only required to examine whether there is sufficient cause for the documents not having been filed along with the plaint. The evidentiary or other value of the document vis-a-vis the controversy in issue in the plaint, is a consideration alien to the application."

Court’s Observations on Amendment of Plaint and Section 26 of Specific Relief Act

Mandatory Nature Of Proviso To Section 26(4)

The Court delved deep into Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, which governs the rectification of instruments. It noted that while Section 26(4) states that no relief for rectification shall be granted unless specifically claimed, the Proviso to that section creates a duty for the court. The Proviso explicitly states that where a party has not claimed such relief, the court "shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the pleading" to include such a claim.

Rectification Permitted To Reflect Real Intention

Justice Pushkarna observed that both the plaintiff and the deceased defendant intended the sale of a specific parcel of land. Since the defendant did not own the Killa numbers mentioned in the original agreement, the error was clearly clerical or a mutual mistake. The Court held that a person can only intend to sell what they possess, and thus, the Agreement to Sell failed to express the real intention of the parties regarding the property description.

"Section 26 clearly says as to when a contract or other instrument can be rectified and provides that when through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, the agreement in writing does not express their real intention, it is open to the parties to apply for amendment of the instrument."

Amendment Does Not Change Nature Of Suit

Rejecting the defendant's contention that the amendment would change the nature of the suit, the Court clarified that the suit remains one for specific performance. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Puran Ram v. Bhaguram, the bench held that substituting the correct Khasra numbers or property descriptions does not amount to setting up a new case or a fresh cause of action. It is merely a correction of a part of the description which was wrongly recorded.

No Question Of Limitation In Misdescription Cases

Regarding the plea of limitation, the Court held that since the original suit for specific performance was filed within time, any amendment to correct the property description or seek rectification would relate back to the date of the institution of the suit. The bench noted that no absolute rule exists that an amendment cannot be allowed if the relief is allegedly barred by limitation; the court must exercise judicial discretion to subserve the ultimate cause of justice.

"Therefore, even if the amendment of plaint or agreement is allowed, that will relate back to the filing of the suit which was filed within the period of limitation."

The Court allowed the amendment application, observing that the suit is still at a pre-trial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants as they would have the opportunity to file amended written statements. However, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the plaintiff for the delay in moving the applications, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) Costs Account.

Date of Decision: 03 July 2026