JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. Defendant No.4 through the instant application has sought leave of this Court to incorporate in the written-statement the averments embodied in paragraph 4 of the application. However preliminary objection No. 5 occurring therein qua whose incorporation in the written statement, leave of this Court is sought pertains to the legal incompetence of the plaintiff to record an agreement to sell qua the suit property with the defendants, legal incompetence whereof arises from the plaintiff not obtaining the statutory sanction under Section 118 of H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 from the appropriate Government prior to its recording with the defendants an agreement to sell qua the suit property whereupon the agreement to sell stands concomitantly ingrained with a vice of voidness whereupon this Court stands precluded to pronounce an executable decree qua the suit property vis-à-vis the plaintiff. However the aforesaid preliminary objection may not warrant its incorporation in the apposite pleadings given the requisite permission for validating the execution of a registered deed of conveyance qua the suit property may yet being available to be applied for also the requisite permission thereon may stand accorded by the appropriate government during the pendency of the suit. Also the aforesaid objection hence would remain attended to by this Court at the time of its pronouncing, if any, a decree of specific performance qua the plaintiff. However, as a matter of extreme wariness besides caution significantly when the aforesaid facet may remain undivulged before this Court also when given its standing camouflaged from the sight of the Court, it may pronounce a decree for specific performance qua the suit property, dehors the requisite permission standing neither applied for nor granted to it by the government, pronouncement whereof would obviously stands stained with a vice of voidness also would be un-executable, objection whereof qua the aforesaid facets may ultimately stand agitated before the learned executing Court. For obviating all the aforesaid unnecessary cumbersome ordeals also for facilitating this Court, if ultimately stands satisfied qua the probative tenacity of the evidence as stands adduced by the plaintiff on the apposite issue to thereupon pronounce an executable decree for specific performance bereft of any stain of voidness, it is deemed fit and appropriate that objection No. 5 as prayed to be incorporated in the written-statement be permitted to be incorporated therein. 2. 2. The preliminary objection No. 4, as is also sought with leave of this Court to be incorporated in the written-statement pertains to the invalidity of the agreement to sell recorded inter-se the plaintiff and the defendants, invalidity whereof stands embodied therein to arise from no sanction within the mandate of Section 17 of the Companies Act standing obtained by the defendants qua alienation of the suit property, infringement whereof would ultimately stain with a vice of nullity the decree if any pronounced by this Court, for obviation whereof its incorporation in the written-statement is imperative. The aforesaid objection obviously also when pervasively invades the trite factum qua the execute-ability of an apposite decree if ultimately stands pronounced by this Court on its drawing affirmative satisfaction qua the tenacity of the relevant apposite evidence as adduced qua the apposite issue, as a corollary with ready availability before this Court of objection No. 4 also significantly with its constituting a potent incremental force to the cause of justice also its facilitating this Court to omit to record an unexecutable decree, its incorporation in the written-statement is just and essential, conspicuously for empowering this Court to determine all the relevant germane issues which engage the parties at lis hereat. 3. However even before this Court has granted leave to defendant No.4 to incorporate in the apposite written-statement preliminary objections No. 4 and 5 nonetheless before parting, it is deemed apt to allude to the vigorous contest raised by the counsel for the non-applicants qua leave standing granted to defendant No.4 for their incorporation in his written-statement. The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for the non-applicants is anchored upon the factum of the applicant not meteing nor begetting satiation of the ingredients of the proviso occurring in Order 6 Rule17 CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, where within an embargo stands constituted against this Court ordering for their incorporation in the apposite pleadings of any party to the lis, significantly when the relevant party to the lis concerts after commencement of trial to beget an apposite amendment to its pleadings unless this Court is satisfied that despite exercise of due diligence by any contesting party claiming leave of this Court to incorporate the proposed amendment in its pleadings his/its previously yet standing deterred to unearth it besides obviously standing precluded to raise it earlier. He fortifies his submission by contending qua with the aforesaid facets being at the outset within the knowledge of the defendant his omitting to thereat incorporate them in his pleadings, invites the embargo constituted in the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to stand attracted vis-à-vis the defendant. He also contends qua hence his omission to incorporate them in his pleading renders him disabled to contend qua his despite exercising due diligence he stood disabled to thereat unearth them also concomitantly is disabled to contend qua hence his extantly unearthing them he is rendered capacitated to seek their incorporation in his apposite pleadings. Consequently he submits of his aforesaid awareness at the outset qua the aforesaid facets significantly when they within their gamut encompassed knowledge of law, ignorance whereof thereat cannot efficaciously stand canvassed by him qua hence his standing precluded to initially incorporate them in his written statement, vigorously ousts his belated concert for seeking their incorporation in the written statement conspicuously when the principle of estoppel contemplated in the Proviso Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC works against the defendant concerned. Even though the aforesaid fetter embodied in the relevant proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC may work in favour of the non-applicants also hence their contention may warrant acceptance nonetheless the proviso occurring in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not to stand meted a pedantic strict interpretation dehors the preceding provisions thereto. Even if the facts aforesaid for the reasons aforesaid were at the outset in the knowledge of the defendant concerned also cannot coax this Court to come to a conclusion of the defendant concerned despite his earlier awareness qua theirs existence his omission to at the outset incorporate them in his pleadings oust him at this belated stage to seek their incorporation in his pleadings. However, as stated hereinabove the rigor of the proviso would stand relaxed besides waned especially when its provisions do not warrant theirs standing read in isolation vis-à-vis the preceding provisions occurring therein significantly the one of given on an objective satisfaction drawn by this Court qua the proposed amendments being necessary for determining the relevant controversy, it, thereupon despite the mandate of the proviso working against the defendant concerned, holding jurisdiction to permit their incorporation in the apposite written-statement. Unless the aforesaid harmony stands begotten inter-se the relevant provision preceding the proviso vis-à-vis the proviso, a conflict would arise qua theirs respective workability, conflict whereof is to be obviated. Predominantly to the mind of this Court the apt provision preceding the proviso besides the nuance of the import of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which upsurges on a wholesome reading of its provisions in its entirety is when the relevant Court draws objective satisfaction qua the incorporation of the relevant pleadings in the relevant amendments being both just and essential for determining the relevant controversy engaging the parties at lis, it stands statutorily empowered to permit their incorporation in the relevant pleadings As a corollary when this Court draws an objective satisfaction within the ambit of the relevant provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preceding its proviso qua their incorporation therein being essential for determining the relevant controversy engaging the parties at lis, hence when the amendments aforesaid in the relevant pleadings of the contesting parties fall within the ambit of the nuance of the apt provisions of CPC besides are facilitative for this Court to ultimately pronounce an executable decree also when their incorporation would aid this Court to determine all the questions engaging the parties at lis preponderantly when their incorporation would aid this Court to ensure prevalence of statutory laws vis-à-vis the agreement to sell recorded inter-se the parties at lis. In sequel a decree for specific performance cannot either benumb or negate the effect of statutory laws nor also can the workability of the apposite statutory laws stand ousted qua the apposite renditions recorded by this Court. As an apt sequitur if the amendments as prayed to be incorporated in the written-statement are rejected while accepting the contention of the counsel for the non-applicants contention whereof stands anvilled upon the relevant proviso the ultimate causality would be the decree itself, as a corollary its rejection is warranted. Any decree, if, rendered in gross detraction besides transgression of the mandate of statutory provisions holding clout qua the suit property also if their incorporation in the relevant pleadings is not permitted, would hence stand infected with a vice of nullity. Any decree, if, rendered in gross detraction besides transgression of the mandate of statutory provisions holding clout qua the suit property also if their incorporation in the relevant pleadings is not permitted, would hence stand infected with a vice of nullity. The aforesaid objections qua a vice of nullity hence ingraining the apposite renditions if remain unattended by this Court also if their incorporation in the relevant pleadings is not permitted, it would stand prodded to render an un-executable decree whereupon the JD would stand empowered to rear them before the learned Executing Court whereupon it on its finding qua theirs holding tenacity may ultimately render a verdict annulling the decree, it standing ingrained with a deep pervasive vice of voidness, its overriding the mandate of statutory laws whereupon the entire exercise embarked upon by this Court would be rendered nugatory. Consequently for obviating all the aforesaid casualties it is not deemed fit and appropriate to solitarily hold reliance upon the proviso appended to order 6 Rule 17 CPC rather it is deemed fit and appropriate to beget harmony vis-à-vis the relevant proviso and the statutory provisions occurring preceding thereto, primarily for ensuring the paramount factum of prevalence of statutory laws vis-à-vis the suit property also for ensuring the clout of statutory laws qua the controversy besetting the parties at lis besides to preclude the rendition of an assumingly nonest decree. In view of above, the petition is allowed. ?Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. CS No. 90 of 2010 Amended written-statement be filed within two weeks. Replication, if any, to the amended written-statement be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter.