JASBIR KAUR Vs. MADHU BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the vendee who brought a suit for specific performance with respect to an agreement of sale dated 28.3.2008 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana with respect to a plot measuring 234 square yards comprised in Khasra Number mentioned in the headnote to the plaint. In the suit, he arrayed Madhu Bala as defendant No.1. He also impleaded Balwinder Kaur as defendant No.2 since Madhu Bala etc. had sold the property to Balwinder Kaur after entering into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff and thereafter backing out of the deal.

(2.) INDISPUTABLY , the petitioner -plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell not just with Madhu Bala but her son as well namely Deepak alias Darshan Dayal. This omission remained on the plaint and was sought to be corrected by the plaintiff by preferring an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC for impleading Deepak alias Darshan Dayal and for leave to amend the plaint accordingly. This application was, however, filed by the new Counsel.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court vide impugned order dated 14.1.2014 has dismissed the application on the ground that this fact was known to the plaintiff and he did not exercise due diligence in impleading a co -vendee and therefore he should not be allowed to implead Deepak alias Darshan Dayal. The trial Judge has reasoned that if as per the applicant -plaintiff, Deepak alias Darshan Dayal is to be impleaded as party to this case, then circumstances should have been explained as to how he is a necessary and proper party for the disposal of the present controversy. The trial Court has not been happy with the change of Counsel and has observed that change of Counsel is no ground to allow the application. For these reasons, the application has been dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.