RAJEEV SHARMA Vs. B K SHARMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 17.8.2010 whereby application for amendment of the plaint filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed and respondent No.3 has been impleaded as defendant No.3 in the suit.

(2.) As per the averments made in this petition, respondent No.1 filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.6.2006 directing the petitioner and respondent No.2 to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit property and also sought relief of permanent injunction. Subsequent to filing of the suit, respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading respondent No.3 as defendant alleging that respondent No.3 had purchased the suit property after filing of the suit and therefore, it was necessary to amend the plaint by adding the relief of seeking declaration that the aforesaid alienation made by respondents No.1 and 2 in favour of respondent No.3 was illegal, null and void and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and further restraining respondent No.3 from alienating/creating further charge on the suit property.

(3.) The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioner stating that respondent No.3 was not necessary to be added as a party as she had not signed the agreement in question and if the plaintiff wants to seek some relief on the basis of new facts which have come into existence after filing of the suit, he should file fresh case and vide proposed amendment, the nature of the suit will be changed and the same is liable to be rejected.