PHUMMAN SINGH Vs. SUKHWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.5.2009, whereby the respondent has been permitted to amend the suit so as to challenge the decree dated 1.9.2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 273 of 2004 and also sale deed dated 22.12.2005 executed in pursuance of such decree.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 7.5.2003 on 13.5.2004 against Swaran Singh, the owner of the land measuring 7 kanals 7 marlas. On the other hand, defendant No. 2- Phuman Singh, the present petitioner, filed Civil Suit No. 273 of 2004 on 11.6.2004 for specific performance of the alleged agreement dated 17.4.2003. In the said suit, an exparte decree has been granted on 1.9.2005. In pursuance of such decree, the sale deed in favour of the petitioner has been executed by the vendor Swaran Singh on 22.12.2005. Since the decree has been granted after the filing of the suit and the sale deed has been executed thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent has been permitted to amend the plaint so as to challenge the said decree and the sale deed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has been permitted to amend the plaint, after the trial has commenced. Such amendment could not be granted in view of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra, 1995 3 SCC 147, to contend that the petitioner cannot be permitted to be impleaded as party in the suit for specific performance.