SHAMSHAD BEGUM Vs. HASSAN MURTAZA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure P -7) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula, whereby an application made by the petitioner -plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Smt. Sulochana Kaur and Smt. Santosh Kuar in the array of the parties in the suit has been dismissed.

(2.) ON 4.2.2006, an agreement to sell was executed in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff by defendant No. 1 -respondent No. 1 for four acres of land for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/ - per acre. An amount of Rs. 70,000/ - was given by the petitioner -plaintiff as earnest money. The date for the execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 2.6.2006. Thereafter by mutual consent, verbally, this date was changed to 5.6.2006. On 5.6.2006, the petitioner -plaintiff presented herself along with balance sale consideration and the other necessary funds for charges etc. in the office of the Sub Registrar, however, the respondent No. 1 -defendant No. 1 failed to show up. Thereafter the date for execution of the sale deed was fixed for 30.4.2007. On 1.3.2007, the plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land. Vide registered sale deed dated 2.3.2007, respondent No. 1 sold 9 Kanals 18 marlas land to respondents No. 2 & 3 i.e. Jaswinder Kaur and Barkha Kaur. Thereafter the petitioner -plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract. Another miscellaneous application was allowed seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract against respondent No. 1 -defendant No. 1 and declaration against respondents No. 2 & 3 -defendants No. 2 & 3 that the sale deed executed in their favour was not binding on the rights of the petitioner -plaintiff. At the stage of submitting documentary evidence, respondents No. 2 & 3 -defendants No. 2 & 3 filed their respective written statements. The petitioner -plaintiff came to know from the office of Halqa Patwari that defendant No. 1 -respondent No. 1 had sold a part of the suit land to respondent No. 2 vide sale deed dated 21.6.2006 much prior to the filing of the original suit. The present application (Annexure P -5) in question was filed thereafter to amend the plaint as well as to implead Sulochana Kaur and Santosh Kaur as respondents in the civil suit.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner -plaintiff argued that he had no occasion to implead and amend the plaint with regard to the sale deed dated 21.6.2006 as it was not in his knowledge. Rather, respondents No. 2 & 3 -defendants No. 2 & 3 had disclosed this fact at the time of filing written statement in the suit. The plaintiff got the computerised print of the revenue record on 5.11.2012 when the certified copy of the sale deed was obtained from the office of the Joint Sub -Registrar, Raipur Rani and, thereafter, the present application (Annexure P -5) for making the suitable amendment and implead the respondents was filed. He has further argued that two previous applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC have been allowed with respect to the sale deed made in favour of Jaswinder Kaur and Barkha Kuar of 9 kanals and 18 marls of land and hence this application could not have been dismissed.