Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1470 (PNJ)

Sukhdev Singh v. Bakha Singh

2009-08-21

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 12.06.09, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh, vide which, it dismissed the application, under Order 6, Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of plaint. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, on the basis of the agreement to sell, executed, in his favour, by defendant No.l. The defendants failed to execute and get registered the sale deed. During the pendency of the suit, an application for amendment was filed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, that he came to know that the defendants had hatched a conspiracy, wherein, they fabricated and manipulated the agreement to sell dated 03.07.2000, stated to have been executed by defendant No.2, in his favour, relating to the property in dispute. It was stated that the stamp paper upon which the agreement to sell dated 03.07.2000 had been scribed, was purchased by the defendants, having some back date, and entered into by the stamp vendor, in his register at serial No.l 120. It was further stated that the register of the stamp vendor showed that at serial No.l 120, some other person namely Jai Bhagwan, had purchased the stamp paper. However, the names of the defendants, as the purchasers, of the stamp paper, were got incorporated. By way of amendment, the plaintiff wanted to incorporate, in the plaint, the aforesaid facts. He also wanted to incorporate the factum, that a criminal case was registered against the defendants. 3. This application was contested, on the ground, that after the trial of the case had commenced, the amendment could not be allowed, as per the proviso engrafted to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was stated that the agreement to sell dated 03.07.2000, was legal and valid. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the trial Court, dismissed the application for the amendment of plaint. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the amendment sought for, was essential, for the just decision of the case. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the amendment sought for, was essential, for the just decision of the case. He further submitted that the Court, was required to determine, as to whether the amendment sought for was necessary to subserve the ends of justice. He further submitted that the Court below, by adopting the highly technical approach, dismissed the application. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitipner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The suit was filed on 24.08.01. The written statement was filed, by the defendants, in the year 2002. In the written statement, the defendants took up the plea, with regard to the execution of the agreement to sell dated 03.07.2000. It means that in the year 2002, when the written statement, was filed, by the defendants, the plaintiff had come to know, with regard to the execution of the agreement to sell dated 03.07.2000. The plaintiff did not move any application, for the amendment of plaint, at that very time. He slept over the matter, and, ultimately, filed an application in the year 2003, which was dismissed by the Court below, vide the order impugned. The stand taken up, by the plaintiff, in the application for amendment was that he came to know regarding the forgery of the agreement dated 03.07.2000, later on, was, thus, belied from the facts and circumstances of the case. Not only this, in the replication (copy Annexure P2) in para I of the preliminary objections, the plaintiff took up the plea, that it was crystal clear, that the alleged agreement dated 03.07.2000 was manipulated and the stamp papers were purchased after 12.10.2000, with the active connivance of the stamp vendor, deed writer and the defendants. So the plea, in detail, regarding forgery of the agreement to sell dated 03.07.2000, has already been taken, by the plaintiff, in the replication. The trial Court, in my opinion, was also right in holding that, in the pleadings, only facts, constituting the cause of action, were required to be incorporated. So the plea, in detail, regarding forgery of the agreement to sell dated 03.07.2000, has already been taken, by the plaintiff, in the replication. The trial Court, in my opinion, was also right in holding that, in the pleadings, only facts, constituting the cause of action, were required to be incorporated. The trial Court was also right, in holding, that by way of amendment, the plaintiff wanted to incorporate the evidence, which was to be led by him, to prove the illegality and invalidity of the agreement to sell dated 03:07.2000, in rebuttal to the evidence, produced by the defendants. The trial Court, was, thus, right in holding that the pleas sought to be incorporated, by way of amendment constituted the evidence, required to be produced, at the relevant time. As stated above, even already the detailed plea regarding the forgery of the agreement to sell, has already been taken in the replication. The order impugned does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed.