RANJIT SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the impugned order dated 22.7.2013 (Annexure P-1), whereby the application filed by petitioner-defendant No. 1 for striking out of the amendment caused by the respondent-plaintiff in pursuance to the order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the trial Court, has been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-defendant No. 1 submits that in pursuance to the receipt of the summons of the suit for injunction filed on 6.2.2012, defendant No. 1 disclosed that the property had already been sold to M/s. HR Equipment Pvt. Ltd. vide sale deed dated 7.3.2012. It is in these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiff moved the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure P-5). The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 8.5.2013. Without moving separate application for amendment of the plaint, respondent-plaintiff incorporated the relief of declaration in the headnote and the prayer clause and also added paragraphs 14 and 16 and applications (Annexures P-7 and P-8) were filed for striking out of the amended plaint and as well as the application seeking interim order. He further submits that even if the plaintiff had reserved the right to seek amendment, there has to be an independent and separate application and he cannot assume that while granting the prayer under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 8.5.2013, amendment of the plaint is also inherent. He has also referred to the amendment caused by this Court in High Court Rules and Orders, which prescribes that the application for amendment has to be in writing and shall state the specific amendments, which are sought to be made indicating the words or paragraph to be added, omitted or substituted to the original pleading and cites the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja, 2002(2) Civ C.C. 1 to contend that the parties cannot be taken at surprise.

(3.) Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-plaintiff submits that the plaintiff had no other option but to seek impleadment of defendant No. 3 as defendant No. 1 had sold the land during the pendency of the suit and accordingly, the trial Court, while allowing application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, also granted liberty to file the amended plaint. Accordingly, the amended plaint was filed and the order dated 8.5.2013 attained finality and, therefore, the application at the behest of the petitioner-defendant was not maintainable. He further submits that the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10ORDER1 Code of Civil Procedure also envisage the amendment of the plaint in case the person added as defendant and relied upon the following judgments to contend that in such situation, the amendment of the plaint is inevitable.