HARPINDER SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.10.2008 filed by plaintiff Balbir Singh, respondent herein, is pending adjudication in the court below. Defendants Harpinder Singh and Ravinder Singh i.e. defendants No.2 and 3 in the court below, petitioners herein, were resisting the suit.

(2.) ORDER dated 26.02.2015 vide which application for amendment of the plaint has been allowed by the court below, is under challenge in this revision petition on the ground that neither there was due diligence nor the same had merit and in this respect, he has cited Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Anr. Versus Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Ors., 2007 1 RCR(Civ) 481. It is urged that amendment in pleadings should not have been allowed, when no case for showing of due diligence was made out. Reference to para 52 of the judgment has been made, whereby Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that plea of due diligence had not even been taken in the pleadings. Consequently, the court had come to the conclusion that in the interest of justice, the amendment sought for should not have been allowed.

(3.) DEALING with this matter at a sufficient length and also considering the effect of proviso added to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, the court below had considered the law cited in the reply to the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC at a considerable length. Perusal of the impugned order as also the pleadings of the parties reveal that the petitioners were impleaded as defendants subsequent to their purchase of the property during pendency of the suit. Sale deed in their favour from the original defendant Baldev Singh is of 31.05.2011.