JUDGMENT : HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) I.A. 6466/2013 (by the plaintiff u/O I R 10(2) r/w O VI R 17 CPC) 1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff praying inter alia for permission to amend the plaint. 2. Despite the fact that an advance copy of the application was served on the defendants and counsel for the defendants had entered appearance and sought time to file a reply to the application, no reply has been filed till date. Nor has the counsel for the defendants been appearing in the case for some time. 3. The plaintiff has instituted the accompanying suit praying inter alia for a decree of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 12.11.2009, against the defendants No.1 to 3 in respect of a tract of agricultural land measuring 2 Bighas, 6 Biswas, comprised in Khasra No.100/8 min., situated in village Pooth Khurd, Tehsil Alipur, Delhi. 4. The written statement was filed by the defendants on 20.05.2011. The Sub-Registrar, impleaded by the plaintiff as defendant No.4 has already been deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 01.04.2011. The present application came to be filed by the plaintiff/company on 16.04.2013, seeking permission to strike out the names of the defendants No.1 and 3 from the array of defendants on the ground that they are neither signatories to the Agreement to Sell, nor did they encash the cheques of earnest money that the plaintiff had issued in their favour. The plaintiff also seeks a series of consequential amendments as set out in para 7 of the application. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff states that if the names of the defendants No.1 and 3 are permitted to be deleted from the array of defendants, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. It has been further averred in the application that the plaintiff seeks to confine the relief in the suit to a decree of specific performance only against the defendant No.2 in respect of his 1/3rd share in land measuring 2 Bighas 6 Biswas owned by all the defendants collectively with further leave to carry out consequential amendments in the valuation para, by reducing the valuation for the relief of specific performance from Rs.62,29,600/- to Rs.20,76,534/-. 6. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the amendments proposed in the original plaint will neither change the nature or the character of the suit and the defendants cannot have any objection to the plaintiff confining the relief in the suit to the defendant No.2 alone and that too in respect of his 1/3rd undivided share in the agricultural land. 7. The Court has examined the averments made in the present application vis-à-vis the averments made by the plaintiff in the original plaint. In the suit as originally instituted by it, the plaintiff has made extensive reference to all the defendants starting from para 3, where it has been stated that the defendants No.1 to 3 had approached the plaintiff/company claiming to be the absolute owners of the subject land and had assured the plaintiff’s officers that they were fully competent and empowered to deal with the said land. The narrative in the plaint continues on the same lines right till paras 9, where the plaintiff has stated that in the month of March, 2011, it had come to know that the defendants were in the process of disposing of the land by entering into an agreement with a third party and when confronted with the same, the said defendants had failed to give a satisfactory reply to the plaintiff. 8. In view of the factual narration in the original plaint, the Court is not inclined to entertain the request of the plaintiff for striking out the names of the defendants No.1 and 3 as it cannot be stated that the said defendants are neither necessary, nor proper parties in the suit proceedings. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that she will not insist on deletion of the defendants No.1 and 3 from the array of parties and instead, the plaintiff may be permitted to amend the prayer clause by seeking a decree against the defendant No.2 alone and calling upon him to discharge his obligations under the Agreement to Sell by executing a Sale Deed in its favour in respect of his 1/3rd undivided share in the subject land. 10. 10. It is pertinent to note that the suit was original instituted by the plaintiff against all the defendants and the plaintiff has claimed that all the defendants had represented to it that they are the absolute owners and Bhumidars in possession of the subject land and they had agreed to sell the said land to the company for a total sale consideration of Rs.62,29,600/-. Further, the plaintiff has averred that it had issued cheques in favour of each of the defendants separately and it has furnished the particulars of the cheques issued by it in favour of each of the defendants towards earnest money, totalling to Rs.6,22,960/-. 11. For the counsel for the plaintiff to state today that the plaintiff should be permitted to pursue the relief of specific performance against the defendant No.2 alone and not against the defendants No.1 & 3, is untenable in the light of the averments made in the original plaint. The contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that the relief against the defendant No.2 can be granted by segregating the cheques issued by the plaintiff in favour of each of the defendants towards the earnest money in proportion to their respective shareholdings in the subject land, is not borne out from averments made in the plaint where the plaintiff has repeatedly stated that it had entered into the transaction with all the defendants in respect of the entire parcel of land measuring 2 bighas, 6 biswas. 12. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff goes on to state that an error has crept in the plaint in respect of the date of the Agreement to Sell which has been typed out as 12.11.2009, whereas the correct date is 13.11.2009. Upon examining the documents filed by the plaintiff, it transpires that at the time of instituting the suit, the plaintiff had filed a list of documents under index dated 24.07.2011 and had enclosed therewith a photocopy of the subject Agreement to Sell. The date of the Agreement to Sell mentioned at Sr. No.3 of the list of documents is 12.11.2009, whereas the date on the face of the first page of the Agreement to Sell, is mentioned as “11” in long hand and the month and the year have been typed out as “November, 2009”. The date of the Agreement to Sell mentioned at Sr. No.3 of the list of documents is 12.11.2009, whereas the date on the face of the first page of the Agreement to Sell, is mentioned as “11” in long hand and the month and the year have been typed out as “November, 2009”. Subsequently, when the plaintiff had filed the original Agreement to Sell under index dated 11.01.2014, the said index mentions the date of the Agreement to Sell as 12.11.2009, however, the face of the non-judicial stamp paper used as the first page for executing the said document does not bear any date which is left blank and the month and the year that has been typed out as “November, 2009”. Curiously, the reverse of the said stamp paper bears a seal showing the date of purchase as 13.11.2009. It has been enquired from learned counsel that when the stamp paper mentions the date of purchase as 13.11.2009, how could the plaintiff have mentioned the date of execution of the Agreement to Sell as 12.11.2009 in the plaint and in the originally filed list of documents. There is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming for the said mismatch. 13. On a bare reading of the original Agreement to Sell, it appears that there has been an interpolation/tampering in the photocopy of the Agreement to Sell filed along with the documents submitted with the plaint. The correct position is that the Agreement to Sell does not bear any date. The non-judicial stamp paper used as the first page for typing out the Agreement to Sell, was purchased on 13.11.2009 and therefore, the question of executing the document prior thereto, on 12.11.2009, does not arise. Apparently, the plaintiff company realised this folly at the stage of filing the original documents in March, 2013. Immediately thereafter, the present application came to be filed by the plaintiff in April 2013, and the differing dates have sought to be glossed over as an “inadvertence”. Learned counsel has not been able to dispel the cloud looming large on the aforesaid document. 14. The Court is conscious of the fact that the law on permission to amend the plaint is fairly liberal. Learned counsel has not been able to dispel the cloud looming large on the aforesaid document. 14. The Court is conscious of the fact that the law on permission to amend the plaint is fairly liberal. However having regard to the nature of the amendments sought by the plaintiff, which run contrary to the documents originally and subsequently filed by it and in the light of the observations made hereinabove with respect to the date of execution of the Agreement to Sell, a document on which the foundation of present suit has been laid, the Court is of the opinion that the amendments sought by the plaintiff are an attempt to turn the pleadings in the suit on its head and radically change the contours of the averments made in the original plaint, only to overcome the grave pitfalls highlighted above. As a result, the court is not persuaded by the explanation sought to be offered by the plaintiff for permission to amend the plaint and is of the opinion that the amendments as proposed are in bad faith. 15. For the present, the court is refraining from making any further observations in respect of the date of execution of the Agreement to Sell but the said aspect has been taken note of and shall be kept in mind at the stage of final arguments, after the evidence is concluded in the suit. 16. The application is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the plaintiff, which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, within two weeks from today. Proof of deposit shall be placed on record within one week thereafter.