The Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed that a plaintiff cannot use Order VI Rule 17 CPC to replace a claim for specific performance with a monetary claim, reinforcing the principle that amendment must not alter the fundamental nature of the suit.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Kim Infrastructures and Developers Ltd., entered into a sale agreement dated 18.05.2012 with the first respondent, M/s K.B. Machines and others, for the transfer of a property at a total consideration of Rs 7,63,75,000. An earnest money of Rs 1,52,75,000 was paid at execution, and a further Rs 76,00,000 was paid on 01.12.2012. The parties agreed that the sale deed would be executed on or before 16.03.2013. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, despite a legal notice dated 25.01.2014, refused to execute the deed.
Key Facts
- 18.05.2012: Sale agreement executed.
- 01.12.2012: Additional payment of Rs 76,00,000 made.
- 16.03.2013: Deadline for execution of sale deed.
- 25.01.2014: Legal notice served on defendants.
- 23.08.2007: Registered will of deceased partner Gian Singh.
- 13.08.2019: Trial Court dismissed amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
- 04.07.2019: High Court, by way of Civil Revision No.1379 of 2019, granted liberty to raise objections before trial court.
- 23.07.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 27.07.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Procedural History
- 18.05.2012 - Sale agreement executed.
- Date not specified - Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance (CIS No. CS-634-2016) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar.
- 25.01.2014 - Legal notice served on defendants.
- During pendency - Respondent No.2, Gian Singh, died; respondents Nos.3 and 4 were impleaded as legal representatives on the basis of the 23.08.2007 will.
- Date not specified - Defendants filed an application expressing willingness to honour the agreement and prayed for a decree for specific performance.
- Date not specified - Plaintiff filed an application under Order XI CPC seeking interrogatories about the heirs; the application was dismissed.
- 04.07.2019 - High Court, via Civil Revision No.1379 of 2019, granted liberty to the plaintiff to raise all objections before the trial court.
- After 04.07.2019 - Plaintiff filed amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking:
- Deletion of specific performance relief;
- Deletion of pleadings on readiness and willingness;
- Incorporation of alleged title defect and heir-dispute facts;
- Conversion of suit to recovery of earnest money and damages.
- 13.08.2019 - Trial Court dismissed the amendment application.
- 23.07.2026 - Matter reserved before the High Court.
- 27.07.2026 - Judgment pronounced, dismissing the revision and upholding the trial court’s order.
Parties' Positions
- Plaintiff argued that the dispute over the validity of the will of the deceased partner created uncertainty about title, that the area of the property was less than agreed, and that these subsequent events justified amending the plaint to seek only monetary relief.
- Defendants contended that the amendment was a mala-fide attempt to escape contractual obligations, that the plaintiff could have relinquished the specific performance claim under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, and that the amendment fundamentally altered the nature of the suit.
Relief Sought
- Plaintiff: Amendment of the plaint to delete specific performance, insert title-defect allegations, and convert the suit into a claim for refund of earnest money and damages.
- Defendants: Dismissal of the amendment application and decree for specific performance as originally pleaded.
Case Details
Kim Infrastructures and Developers Ltd. v. M/s K.B. Machine and Factory and others
Court
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date
27 July 2026
Case Number
CR-5713-2019 (O&M)
Bench
Justice Deepak Gupta
Counsel
Pet: Mr. Prateek Sodhi
Res: Mr. S.S. Behl, Ms. Raageshwari Sharma
Frequently Asked Questions
The Court reiterated that amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is permissible only when it does not fundamentally change the nature or character of the suit, does not introduce an altogether inconsistent case, and is made in good faith.
If a plaintiff wishes to relinquish the relief of specific performance, the appropriate procedure is to invoke Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, not to seek amendment that replaces the claim with a monetary one.
The Court held that the death of a partner and subsequent heir-dispute, once resolved in other proceedings, does not justify amending the original suit to alter its principal relief.
