VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 10.3.2005 vide which the application for amendment of the suit has been declined. The petitioner- plaintiff by way of amendment sought to amend para (1) of the plaint as under :- "That Sawaran Kaur wife of Gulzar Singh was the owner of the property and she had executed an agreement to sell dated 22.3.1990 in favour of Smt. Joginder Kaur and the entire sale consideration of Rs. 25,375/- was received by Sawarn Kaur. As Sawarn Kaur has left with so right, title and interest in the property after the execution of the agreement to sell and delivering the possession in favour of Smt. Joginder Kaur, Smt. Sawarn Kaur executed an irrevocable power of attorney on 22.3.1990 in favour of Smt. Joginder Kaur and this power of attorney was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar."
(2.) SHE also wished to amend the head note of the plaint. The case of the petitioner is that she claimed herself to be the owner on the basis of power of attorney, because total sale consideration was paid, however, no sale-deed was registered in her favour. It was only an agreement to sell along with possession. In para (2) of the original plaint the sale in favour of the defendant was specifically denied. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of two grounds. Firstly, that the sale-deed in favour of defendant was executed prior to institution of the suit and therefore, the valuable right under the Limitation Act had accrued to her as the period of three years had elapsed. The second ground of rejection was that the amendment in the present case cannot be allowed as the same is debarred under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after the commencement of the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not applicable to the present case as present suit was filed prior to amendment. There can be no dispute to this proposition. The learned trial Court was not correct in coming to the conclusion that no amendment could be made in the present casee after the commencement of the trial. The second finding of the learned trial Court also cannot be sustained as in para 2 of the plaint originally filed, sale in favour of defendant was under challenge and therefore it cannot be said that any valuable right of limitation has accrued to the respondent-defendant. Therefore, the order of the trial Court cannot be sustain. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed. However, keeping in view the fact that the application was belated, the petitioner shall pay the cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Petition allowed.;