KIRORI MAL Vs. GANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition assails the order dated 05.02.2011 (Annexure P -6) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff -respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Civil procedure for amendment of the plaint, was allowed.

(2.) EARLIER the respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.07.2004. During the pendency of the said suit, Dharam Pal had obtained a decree on 07.05.2007 for possession on the basis of another agreement dated 26.04.2004. Since the suit of Dharam Pal was decreed during the pendency of the suit, therefore, the respondent moved an application for amendment of the plaint on 28.05.2007 challenging the judgment and decree passed in favour of Dharam Pal and also for his impleadment as a Defendant. The trial Court accepted the said application. The Counsel for the petitioner has come to contend that this amendment should not have been allowed as the factum of pendency of the suit was already in the knowledge of the petitioner since 2005 when he filed the written statement in the Court.

(3.) THE principle that no amendment could be allowed after the trial commenced is not applicable in this case, where the amendment is being allowed on account of the subsequent events occurring between the parties. So long as the decree passed by the Court in a previous suit, in which the respondent was not a party is not challenged, it would remain a permanent hurdle in the way of the petitioner and the decree passed subsequently would be a futile exercise.