KAMALJIT SINGH Vs. SWARN ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar dated 13. 1. 1998 whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE necessary facts are :- that Amrik Singh deceased filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 22. 6. 1988, staled to have been executed by one Shri R. S. Arora, on behalf of the defendants. In the plaint, it was averred that Rs. 10,000.00 was paid as earnest money and the remaining sale consideration was to be paid in the office of the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30th October, 1988. The plaintiff claimed part performance as possession was given to him on 25lh September, 1988. According to him, he got installed electric meter and also installed water pump etc. on the property in question. The suit was contested by the defendants, who had denied the receipt of the amount and had raised various preliminary objections.

(3.) I find substance in the contention of the counsel for the respondents herein that it was after the witnesses of the plaintiff cross-examined and some patent lacuna could be brought on record that the plaintiff is attempting to fill up those lacunae by completely altering this basic case. The defendants has to meet the case pleaded in the plaint and complete alteration of the basic case would normally not permissible unless it is absolutely essential, just, fair and equitable for completely and finally determining the controversy between the parties pending before the Court. The present case certainly does not fall in that category. Amrik Singh had taken definite stand that agreement was executed at Jalandhar and a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 was paid in cash. Now the legal representative of Amrik Singh cannot be permitted to alter the basic pleadings in regard to place of execution of agreement as well as in regard to the payment made at that juncture. Now the proposed amendment, in fact, is even contrary to exhibit P. 1 which is the agreement dated 22. 6. 1988. Should the plaintiff be allowed to lake advantage at this late stage of his own wrong and errors and should the plaintiff be permitted to alter his case to the prejudice of the defendants? Both these questions must be answered in the negative keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the equities.