The Delhi High Court has allowed a plaintiff to amend the property description in a pending suit for specific performance, holding that procedural rules should not prevent the real dispute between the parties from being adjudicated. The Court also permitted the plaintiff to place a later settlement agreement on record, while making it clear that the document's evidentiary value will be examined during trial, not at the amendment stage.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a suit seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell executed in January 2016 relating to agricultural land in Delhi. During the proceedings, the plaintiff claimed that the property description mentioned in the agreement did not correctly reflect the land that the parties had actually intended to transact.
The plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint, correct the property description, seek rectification of the Agreement to Sell under the Specific Relief Act, and incorporate subsequent developments, including later sale transactions concerning the disputed property. The plaintiff also sought to place on record a settlement agreement executed in February 2025, contending that it reflected the parties' original intention regarding the property.
The amendments were opposed on grounds including delay, limitation, alleged prejudice to subsequent purchasers, and the contention that the proposed changes would alter the nature of the suit.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the suit was still at a pre-trial stage and that procedural rules should not defeat the objective of resolving the actual controversy between the parties.
The Court noted that the additional settlement agreement was executed long after the suit was filed and therefore could not have been produced at the time of institution of the proceedings. It held that any objections regarding the genuineness or alleged collusion surrounding the document could be examined during trial.
The bench observed,
"The Court has to ensure that the rules of procedure must not prejudice any party from raising their case."
While considering the amendment application, the Court referred to Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, which permits rectification of written instruments where, because of fraud or mutual mistake, they fail to express the parties' true intention.
The Court found that the material on record indicated a discrepancy between the property description contained in the Agreement to Sell and the land actually owned by the original owner. According to the Court, this prima facie indicated that the parties may have intended to deal with a different parcel of land than what was mistakenly recorded in the agreement.
The Court further observed that permitting the amendments would help resolve the real controversy and avoid multiple proceedings, while leaving all objections regarding the merits of the plaintiff's claims open for trial.
Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application to place the 2025 settlement agreement on record, clarifying that its relevance and admissibility would be decided during trial. It also permitted the amendment of the plaint, including correction of the property description and related pleadings, while rejecting the plaintiff's withdrawn request for an alternative refund claim.
Considering the delay in seeking the amendments, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the plaintiff and directed the filing of the amended plaint within two weeks, after which the defendants were granted time to file their amended written statements.
Case Details
Case Title: Pawwan Khanna v. Deepak Bagga & Anr.
Case Number: CS(OS) 320/2018
Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Decision Date: July 3, 2026
