S SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. VEENA RANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court impugning the order dated 9.4.2014 passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by him for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. The petitioner had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that defendant No.1-Veena Rani is the owner of the land. She had executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2-Pritpal Singh, who as a attorney holder entered into an agreement to sell pertaining to the land in dispute with the petitioner on 3.11.2005. The last date fixed for registration of sale deed was 2.2.2006. The vendor or the attorney having failed to get the sale deed registered, the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell was filed on 24.3.2006, in which status quo was granted on 27.3.2006. Despite this fact, defendant No.1-Veena Rani got the sale deed registered in favour of defendant No.2- Pritpal Singh. Subsequent thereto, defendant No.2-Pritpal Singh sold the property to defendants No.3 and 4, namely, Simmi Sarin and Bhupinder Marwah vide registered sale deeds dated 30.5.2007 of 3/4th and 1/4 th share, respectively. Having come to know about this fact, the petitioner filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the subsequent vendees, namely, defendants No.3 and 4 ( Simmi Sarin and Bhupinder Marwah) as defendants in the suit, which was allowed. The amended plaint was filed, in which inadvertently, the date of sale deed executed by defendant No.1-Veena Rani in favour of defendant No.2-Pritpal Singh was wrongly mentioned as 15.2.2006 instead of 15.9.2006 and pertaining to sale deed of 3/4th share by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3, the date of sale deed was wrongly mentioned ad 27.3.2006 instead of 30.5.2007.

(2.) When the aforesaid mistake came to the knowledge of the petitioner, application for amendment of the plaint was filed on 22.1.2014. The petitioner/plaintiff has already concluded his evidence and is not required to lead any further evidence. Only formal amendment is to be made in the pleadings by correcting the wrong dates. He further submitted that defendants No.3 and 4 (Simmi Sarin and Bhupinder Marwah) were ex-parte before the learned court below. No prejudice will be caused as such to the defendants as the parties have contested the case knowing well the case set up by the plaintiff. There is no sale deed dated 27.3.2006 on record. The courts are always liberal in granting prayer for amendment of pleadings.

(3.) The parties should not be made to suffer on account of fault of their counsel. There is no intention to delay the proceedings, as the petitioner himself is a sufferer. In support of his plea, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Anant Ram v. Hans Raj and others, 2012 5 RCR(Civ) 609 . On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the amended plaint was filed by the petitioner in March 2009 to which the defendant No.2 filed written statement dated 10.3.2010 and defendants No.3 and 4 filed written statement on 22.2.2011. In the written statement filed by respondents No.3 and 4, they had specifically pleaded that property in question was purchased by them from defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 30.5.2007. It was specifically stated that no sale deed was registered on 27.3.2006 in favour of defendant No.3 by defendant No.2 for 3/4th share in the property. Even in the evidence led by the petitioner, the aforesaid facts were specifically confronted to the petitioner, who appeared as PW2 and to PW1-Davinder Singh, one of the witnesses to the agreement to sell, but still no steps were taken by the petitioner to do the needful. Though it was specifically admitted by them that there exists no sale deed dated 15.2.2006 or 27.3.2006.