Plaintiff Cannot Raise Inconsistent Pleas and Barred Claims: Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Amendment for Specific Performance Due to Time Bar

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Narendra Pandey, who sought to amend his plaint to include a claim for specific performance of an unregistered Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated November 16, 2011. The court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing that the proposed amendment was time-barred and would introduce an inconsistent cause of action.

Narendra Pandey (Petitioner) filed a suit for possession, recovery of mesne profit, and permanent injunction on August 28, 2014, claiming he was illegally dispossessed from the suit property in July 2013. The property in dispute included the first and second floors of a building located in Om Vihar Phase-IA, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Pandey based his claim on a collaboration agreement dated August 29, 2011, and subsequent documents, including an ATS, executed by the defendant Jagtar Singh (Respondent).

The defendants filed a written statement denying Pandey’s allegations and challenging the admissibility of the unregistered ATS. Issues were framed in the suit on June 3, 2017, and the trial commenced with Pandey examining multiple witnesses.

The court noted that the unamended plaint was based on Pandey's assertion of ownership and illegal dispossession. By seeking to amend the plaint to include a claim for specific performance of the ATS, Pandey was introducing a new and inconsistent cause of action, fundamentally altering the nature of the suit.

The court emphasized that the claim for specific performance was time-barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the ATS was dated November 16, 2011, and the amendment application was filed on February 13, 2019, well beyond the permissible period.

"The plaintiff admits that the claim of specific relief has become time-barred, and a subsequent suit for the said relief would not be maintainable," the court observed. This admission aligned with the defendants' objection that the proposed amendment sought to introduce a time-barred claim.

The court upheld the Trial Court’s finding that Pandey failed to show due diligence in filing the amendment application after the trial had commenced. Under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, amendments post-trial commencement require proof of due diligence, which Pandey could not demonstrate.

"The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent are satisfied, viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial," the court cited from the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidyabai v. Padmalatha.

The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the petition underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the consistency of pleadings. By affirming the lower court’s decision, the judgment reiterates that introducing a time-barred and inconsistent claim through an amendment is impermissible. This decision is expected to reinforce the legal framework regarding amendments in civil suits, emphasizing the necessity for timely and consistent pleadings.

Date of Decision: January 4, 2024
Narendra Pandey vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors.