RAJ KUMAR Vs. DIPENDER KAUR SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the orders of the High Court of Punjab and haryana dated 30. 10. 2002 dismissing the civil revision application No. 1837 of 1995 and the order dated 22.8.2003 in C. M. No. 10021- cll of 2003 declining to recall the said order.

(3.) On 21.12.1989 the respondent agreed to sell certain property to the plaintiff at certain consideration. Certain amount was also received by the first respondent as earnest money. On 20. 3.90 the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant in which temporary injunction was sought to restrain the respondent-defendant from alienating the suit property until further orders. It was urged by the defendant that a suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable and the plaintiff can seek redress under the Specific Relief Act for specific performance On 3.10. 1991 the appellant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 115 of CPC for making appropriate amendments in the plaint to convert it into d suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.12.1989. This application was allowed on 29.2.1992 despite objections made by the respondent. The amendment was permitted and carried out. The appellant thereafter paid the requisite court fee and filed an amended plaint. Unfortunately, for the appellant, however, perhaps due to negligence of the draftsman of the plaint, the necessary pleading, that the plaintiff was still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in terms of the agreement, was inadvertently omitted even in the amended plaint.