RAJ KISHORE Vs. SUKHVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) whereby the plaintiff-applicant is seeking to amend the plaint and add the relief of possession in respect of the suit property being consequential to the relief of specific performance of the contract, already made in the plaint.

(2.) Brief facts are: that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants alleging therein that on 28th October, 1996, defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell their flats bearing Nos. 54-C and 54-D, Pandu Nagar, New Delhi to the plaintiff for Rs. 7,70,000/-;the plaintiff paid anadvance of Rs. 1,00,000/-towards the sale consideration to the defendants against receipts and balance of Rs. 6,70,000/- was to be paid by plaintiff to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed and handing over of the possession of the said property, which was to be done within 2 months. On 28th December, 1996 letter of extension was signed by these defendants, agreeing to execute the sale documents by the end of January, 1997 on the same terms and conditions. It is pleaded that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is further pleaded that on 20th January, 1997 defendants 1 and 2 with ulterior motives and mala fide intentions decided to sell the said property to the third party without consent of the plaintiff. A notice was served on the defendants. In reply to the notice it was stated that on 31.1.1997, defendants were present in Office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of the documents in favour of the plaintiff, but he did not turn up for getting the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement. On the basis of the above averments, suit for specific performance was filed against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are respective property dealers and no relief is claimed against them, defendants are ex-parte. Now an application has been moved by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint proposing to add the relief of possession as well.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the amendment is being sought only to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and that under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which reads as under :