(1.) This is defendant's revision petition against the order dated 3.3.2015, allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, filed by the plaintiff-respondent permitting the amendment of a suit for injunction into a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of the suit has been permitted to be altered by permitting amendment and that the trial Court has wrongly formed an opinion that earlier suit having been filed in haste could be permitted to be rectified by allowing the amendment.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the agreement of sale dated 8.1.2014, which has been sought to be added in the amended plaint was known to the plaintiff- respondent as such, no right could have been given to the plaintiff-respondent to enforce the alleged agreement of sale which was in the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the impugned order and the nature of the original suit and the amended plaint. It transpires from the impugned order that while the controversy regarding interim injunction between the plaintiff-respondent and defendant-petitioner was pending, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application for amendment.