JAGJIT SINGH Vs. MITHOO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Jagjit Singh and others (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Faridkot dated 9. 6. 1994. By virtue of the impugned order the learned trial court had dismissed the application filed seeking amendment of the written statement.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that respondent Mithoo Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance and in the alternative the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,76,000.00 against Kartar Singh. During the pendency of the suit, Kartar Singh had expired and the present petitioners were arrayed as legal representatives on 6. 9. 1992. One of the issues as a result of the defence of deceased Kartar Singh framed was "whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of agreement". The learned trial Court with respect to the said issue held that land was not ancestral qua defendant Kartar Singh and that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of agreement. Besides the said findings and the other conclusions arrived at which are not relevant for purposes of disposal of the present revision petition, the suit of the respondent was decreed. The respondent was directed to deposit the remaining sale price in the trial Court within a month.

(3.) THE learned District Judge, Faridkot vide the impugned order dismissed the application relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar and Anr. v. Ram Parkash and Ors. , A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 576. It was held that if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will take away the vested right of other party and it will involve adjudication upon altogether different and independent facts. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.