(1.) PETITIONER filed a suit on 9. 11. 1990 for possession by specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18. 12. 1988. The suit was contested by the defendant by taking a plea that he was out of India on the date of the alleged agreement to sell and that the agreement is the out-come of fraud played on him and the same seems to have been manufactured on a piece of paper, which he had given to his friend for depositing instalments. The suit remained pending for about six years when the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure for the amendment of the plaint. This application was opposed by the defendant by filing a reply thereto. The trial court on a consideration of the matter dismissed the application by order dated April 22, 1996. Hence this revision at the instance of the plaintiff.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the trial court acted with material irregularity and illegality in dismissing the application. Learned counsel further submitted that the law of amendment is very liberal and, therefore the trial court ought to have allowed the amendment as prayed for. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent on the other hand submitted that the learned trial court has dismissed the application on just grounds and the only effort on the part of the plaintiff is to withdraw the admission already made in the plaint after having found that the defendant was not in India on the date of the agreement to sell. Learned counsel submitted that though this defence was taken in the written statement, but the application for amendment was moved only after a photocopy of the passport was placed on record.
(3.) SINCE the suit was filed in the year 1990 and no evidence has, yet been led by the plaintiff, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit at a very early date after affording two to three opportunities to each of the parties for their respective evidence at short intervals. No costs. .