BRIJENDRA SINGH Vs. SUNIL KUMAR ASTHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.K. Sinha for the defendant -revisionist; Sri S.C.Tripathi for the plaintiff -respondent; and perused the record.

(2.) This is defendant's revision against an order dated 19.03.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No.1634 of 2011 by which application 76 Ka seeking amendment in the plaint, enabling addition of relief of specific performance as also of mandatory injunction with few additional paragraphs, has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1000/ -.

(3.) The plaint case was that the defendant had entered into a registered agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 20.02.2008 for transfer of premises No.117/K/80, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur built over free -hold Plot No.62 situated in Block No. K, Scheme -I, Kakadeo, Kanpur admeasuring 297.76 square meter along with existing construction for Rs.40,00,000/ -. In paragraph 7 of the plaint it was alleged that ground floor of the accommodation was in possession of tenants therefore it was agreed that the defendant would get those tenants evicted from his own resources and thereafter, within six months, will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee. In paragraph 14 of the plaint it was pleaded that the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in his favour, subject to vacation of tenant as per registered agreement. Plaintiff's case was that instead of securing eviction of tenants and informing the plaintiff accordingly, the defendant, through his advocate, served a notice dated 19.06.2011, on 20.06.2011, requiring the plaintiff to execute the sale deed and, in fact, was seeking to dispose off the property in open market to third parties.