MALKIAT SINGH Vs. MUNISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 16.11.2017, whereby, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint after framing of the issues for incorporating the relief of possession in a suit for permanent injunction declaring agreement to sell dated 30.03.2012 to be null and void, has been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. A.S.Gill, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff/vendor submitted that suit aforementioned was filed on the various grounds seeking injunction against the respondents/vendees. The relief of possession is inevitable when the declaration of the agreement to sell was sought to be declared null and void. The other party can always be permitted to raise objection in the written statement and compensated in terms of money as the same would not change the cause of action.

(3.) Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that it would be hit by Order 2, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure as plea of possession was available. There is recital of handing over the possession to the vendee in the agreement to sell. Even earlier application for amendment filed which was allowed vide order dated 14.10.2015. The present application is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed as it is a ploy to circumvent the order declining the injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure with regard to forcible interference and possession.