KULJINDER SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the appellant-plaintiff, petitioner herein, is directed against order dated 1.5.2013 vide which his application before the first appellate court in appeal against judgment and decree dated 24.7.2012 passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon, dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for introducing additional facts in the plaint, was dismissed. It is claimed that by way of amendment in the plaint, neither cause of action is being changed nor matter in issue, would find any change. It is urged that delay in filing the application ipso facto is not fatal particularly when the matter materially in issue is not going to be changed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has sought support from Abdul Rehman & another v. Mohd. Ruldu & Others, 2012 4 CivCC 584 , Rajwant Kaur & Others v. Davinder Singh & Others, 2011 2 CivCC 357, Arya Mitter & another v. Harbans & another, 2010 1 CivCC 862 and Kailashpati Devi & Another v. Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal & Others, 2012 4 CivCC 168 , urging that amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice and liberal approach is to be adopted. It is further urged that amendment sought in the plaint is necessary. Support has been sought from Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and otehrs v. K.K. Modi and others, 2006 4 SCC 385. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has urged that amendment sought for at the appellate stage, deprives the defendant of the fruits of adjudication already made in his favour by the trial court. It is contended that the amendment sought for is not only malafide but also is dishonest.

(3.) On hearing of Counsel for the parties and perusal of the paper book, it is revealed that the petitioner, applicant-appellant, had filed a suit on 20.9.2006 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.7.2005 of the land. The said suit was decided on 24.7.2012. Among other aspects, the trial court came to a firm finding that age of the vendordefendant viz., Surinder Kaur, a party to the agreement to sell, was below 18 years and thus, she was minor and the agreement to sell was not a valid agreement enforceable at law. In these circumstances, instead of granting the decree of specific performance of the agreement, decree for recovery of Rs.2.50 lacs, i.e., the amount of earnest money, with costs and interest thereon, was passed.