GURMEET SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of contract of mortgage dated 02.07.1999 against the respondent in respect of the suit shop morefully described in the headnote of the plaint. Permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the respondent from usurping the suit shop.

(2.) During pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint averring, therein, that there is relationship of tenants and landlord between the parties and that the agreement dated 02.07.1999 was created in order to avoid the provisions of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. They also averred that they were shown as tenants in the suit shop by the respondent at monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. So, the agreement of mortgage is only a sham transaction. It was prayed that they want to add Para No. 1(a) in the plaint to the effect that there is relationship of tenants and landlord respectively between the parties. They also want to take this plea in the end of Para 10. They also averred that the proposed amendment is very much necessary for the proper decision of the case. Consequently, prayer for acceptance of application was,thus, made.

(3.) In reply, respondent averred that the petitioners have no right to change their stand and the proposed amendment shall change the nature of the suit. It was also averred that he has filed a counter-claim for mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to receive a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from him and deliver the possession of the suit shop to him. It was further averred that the proposed amendment is not necessary, and it will change the nature of the suit. It was also averred that the suit shop does not fall within the municipal limits of Rajpura. So, it was averred that relationship of tenants and landlord between the parties does not exist. Consequently, prayer for dismissal of application was, thus, made.