SARVO Vs. SUNIL DEWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 23.2.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Ambala, who by allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. at the appellate stage remanded the suit to the trial Court with the direction to entertain the amended plaint and then to dispose of the suit according to law. While allowing the said application of the plaintiff (now respondent) the first Appellate Court also awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as costs to the defendants.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Sunil Dewan filed a suit for permanent injunction against Smt. Sarvo Devi and others restraining defendants No. 1 to 5 from alienating/transferring or creating any charge of whatsoever nature in Plot No. 390, measuring 209 square yards, situated in Sector 12, Panchkula, District Ambala and from interfering into his lawful and peaceful possession and for mandatory injunction against defendant No. 6 directing him to transfer the plot in question in his name as applied for by defendant No. 7, who is a registered Power of Attorney of defendants No. 1 to 5. It was the case of the plaintiff that one Kekar Singh Kaushal was the allottee of the suit property and he died on 27.10.1985. The suit property was inherited by his wife, sons and daughters i.e. defendants No. 1 to 5. Defendant No. 1 sought the permission of Guardian Judge, Ambala and she was granted permission to sell the suit property vide order dated 18.7.1989. Thereafter defendant No. 1 for herself and on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 5 entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiff through her registered Special Power of Attorney Shri Ved Parkash for a sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- vide agreement dated 2.12.1989. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money and later on the balance money was paid as full and final payment at the time of registration of the agreement before the Sub Registrar. The possession was also delivered to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 also executed one registered General Power of Attorney (irrecoverable) (irrevokable ?) in favour of defendant No. 7 Smt. Pushpa Dewan, who is the mother of plaintiff, indemnity bond, affidavit and other necessary documents for the transfer of the plot. By passing the entire sale consideration and delivery of possession, the sale of the plot stood completed except the formal part or the transfer in the record of defendant No. 6. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 1 has become dishonest and threatened to revoke the Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 7 and is trying to dispose of the property through the services of S.K. Vohra, property dealer. The plaintiff after purchasing the said plot from defendants No. 1 to 5 entered into an agreement to sell the same to the said property dealer for a sale consideration of Rs. 4 lacs, but S.K. Vohra fraudulently filled in the form of agreement to sell a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the settled price of Rs. 4 lacs and in this regard a civil suit is pending differently.

(3.) A re-joinder was filed by the plaintiff in which he reiterated his allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement.