KASHI RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the order dtd. 24.1.2006 whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff in the present suit for specific performance was allowed by the learned trial Court.

(2.) Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant Kashi Ram submits that the said amendment application filed belatedly at the stage when the plaintiffs evidence was nearing completion could not have been allowed by the learned trial Court to incorporation the relief in the form of clause (b) of the relief, whereby the relief to the extent purported sale-deed to be executed in favour of the plaintiff or any other person named by him was sought to be incorporated by said amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Mr. Jain further submits that in the present suit, specific performance of the agreement for sale of land measuring 49.10 bighas was sought, whereas in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, it cause before the Court that he was already holding land of about 25 bighas and therefore, if the sale-deed in question under decree of the Court was to be executed in his favour, his holding would exceed the limit prescribed under the Ceiling law. He submits that liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff on this aspect of the matter was granted by this Court by allowing the writ petition No. 4244/2004 filed by the present defendant-petitioner in this Court on 11.5.2006 and thereafter as soon as said cross-examination took place, to find the way out of this, the plaintiff filed the present amendment application to mould the relief by incorporating clause (b) in the relief clause so as to seek execution of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff himself or in favour of the party named by the plaintiff to avoid ceiling on land holding under the relevant law. Mr. Jain, therefore, submits that this amendment sought in relief clause of the suit was malafide and not only was sought at belated stage, but could not be granted by the learned trial Court. He referred to the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. which stand in the statuts book w.e.f. 1.7.2002.

(3.) On the side opposite, Mr. R.K. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent urged that the said amendment has been rightly allowed by the learned trial Court because not only the agreement in question dtd. 13.1.1984 on the basis of which the said suit for specific performance was filed incorporated this stipulation that vendor- present defendant would execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff or the person named by him, but para 6 of the plaint also specifically stated this fact and therefore, the amendment in relief clause sought was in consonance with the pleadings and the document already taken on record and therefore, no valid exception can be taken to such amendment being allowed by the learned trial Court. He further urged that the delay in filing the amendment application arose because in earlier writ petition, this Court directed only on 11.5.2006 cross- examination of the plaintiff on the aspect of his holding within the limits of Land Ceiling law and therefore, when the amendment of the defendant could be allowed, the amendment sought by the plaintiff which has been allowed by the impugned order, could not be said to be invalid or belated and therefore, has been rightly allowed by the learned trial Court.