Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1120 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. Avtar Singh

2001-10-11

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2001
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Challenge in this revision is to the impugned order whereby the petitioners prayer to amend the plain, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code) has been dismissed. 2. I have heard Sh. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision can be disposed of without issuing notice of motion to the other side. 3. The plaintiff (now petitioner) brought a suit for possession through specific performance of the agreement dated 24th October, 1996. The suit was instituted on 14th February, 1997. It is averred that during the pendency of the suit, Avtar Singh defendant had sold the property in dispute in favour of Surinder Singh, Jaswant Singh and Jaswant Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 14th January, 1999. In the wake of the sale having been effected in favour of these persons, the plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint to the following effect :- "That para No. 3-A of the plaint shall be added :- That the defendant No. 1, during the pendency of the suit, had alienated the suit property in favour of other defendants on 14th January, 1999 and had transferred its possession to them, this sale deed is illegal, null and void and does not effect the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property in addition to it. It is hit by principle of lis pendens. As the suit for possession therefore, the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have become necessary party as they are being arrayed as defendant Nos. 2 to 5." 4. The basis for rejecting the application for amendment mainly is that the sale of the suit property will be hit by the principle of lis pendens and that if such an application for impleading the vendees is allowed there will be no end to litigation, therefore, the proposed amendment is not required. Further the vendees are not the necessary party. 5. The reasoning given by the trial court does pot appear to be convincing. In B.K. Narayan Pillai v. Parmeshwaran Pillai and another, 2000(1) R.L.R. 230 it was held that the power to allow the amendments is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. 5. The reasoning given by the trial court does pot appear to be convincing. In B.K. Narayan Pillai v. Parmeshwaran Pillai and another, 2000(1) R.L.R. 230 it was held that the power to allow the amendments is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. "The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers, should not adopt hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation." 6. B.K.N. Pillai case (supra) has been followed in Raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others, 2000(1) R.L.R. 28 holding thereby that the dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. 7. Further, it has been observed by the learned trial Court that the persons to whom the property has been sold vide the registered sale deed dated 14 January 1999 are not the necessary party as the sale of the property will be hit by principle of lis pendens in case the plaintiff proves his case. 8. In Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur 1999(2) S.C.C. 577 it has been held that "Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions in suit." 9. In my opinion, the principles of lis pendens would not debar the plaintiffs to seek proposed amendment. In my opinion, the principles of lis pendens would not debar the plaintiffs to seek proposed amendment. In fact, in this suit for specific performance of the agreement, the defendant had allegedly sold the property to third person. Therefore, defendants defence that the plaintiff has not been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. This plea is not only available to defendant vendor but also to subsequent purchaser. In this regard, reliance is placed on Ram Awadh (dead) by Lrs and others v. Achhaibar Dubey and another, 2000(1) CCC 702. Thus, the presence of subsequent vendors in whose favour of the defendant No. 1 has alienated the property in dispute is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the suit. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this revision is allowed. The plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint as prayed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2, 000/-. Petition allowed.