MANGE RAM Vs. PARBODH CHAND MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Mange Ram (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak, dated 29.8.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court had allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondent Parbodh Chand Mittal had filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was prayed that by virtue of the agreement dated 11.2.1993, the respondent-plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the property in question and the petitioner be restrained not to interfere in his possession over the plot. During the pendency of the said suit, an application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint. It was asserted that the impugned ground taken by the respondent-plaintiff was that the-petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale pertaining to the land in question and had received the whole sale consideration. He had promised to execute the general power of attorney in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. When the petitioner did not execute the power of attorney, referred to above, he had to file the civil suit for a declaration and permanent injunction. It was further asserted that respondent c(sic)e to know that the petitioner has already sold the entire land to different persons, by way of four different transactions namely Chander Prakash and others. The possession had been delivered to the said four persons. It was prayed that these parsons may be arrayed as defendants and a decree for possession of the suit land be also passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner should be directed to get the sale deed executed with respect to the suit land in the name of respondent-plaintiff.

(3.) The application was opposed. As per the petitioner, he had never agreed and consented to execute the power of attorney referred to above in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. It was further contended that the amendment is totally unnecessary. The petitioner was the owner and could dispose of the property and the present relief now being asserted to be claimed could well have claimed when the civil suit was filed. A new cause of action cannot be allowed to be added.