MANOHAR Vs. LAXMI DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant no. 2 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent no. 1 plaintiff for amendment of plaint.

(2.) In amendment application (Annexure P-2), the plaintiff alleged that period for registration of sale deed, being four months from the date of execution of sale deed dated 17.06.2008, has since expired, and therefore, the plaintiff is required to seek relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell by amendment of plaint. Necessary averments in this regard are sought to be added with modification in prayer in the plaint. Defendant no. 2, by filing reply (Annexure P-3), opposed the amendment application and controverted the averments made therein. Learned trial court, vide impugned order, has allowed plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint, subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 2 has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed because it would change the nature of the suit. It was also argued that the plaintiff is not signatory or party to the impugned agreement (Annexure P-1), and therefore, she cannot seek relief of specific performance of the said agreement. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Vipan Kumar vs. Smt. Asha Lata Ahuja and others, 2009 3 CivCC 737.