BALVEER MUND Vs. KRISHAN LAL JAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-defendant has challenged order dated 8th of August, 2018 (Annex.P/7) passed by Addl. District Judge No.2 rejecting his application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC in a suit for specific performance of contract filed by respondent- plaintiff.

(2.) Facts in brief are that initially respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against respondents No.2 to 4 with specific averment that as per agreement to sale, agricultural land of Khasra No.1163 ad- measuring 20 bighas was agreed to be sold by respondent No.2 to him upon obtaining Sanad of the land but after obtaining Sanad instead of abiding by the terms of agreement, the land in question was sold to respondents No.3 and 4. It appears that subsequently respondents No.3 and 4 further alienated the suit property to the petitioner by a registered sale-deed. Considering the subsequent sale relevant in the backdrop of lis involved in the suit, respondent-plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the suit by adding additional paragraph 7(a) and further impleaded petitioner as defendant. In para 7(a), a specific averment is made that respondents No.3 and 4 have sold the property to the petitioner during pendency of the suit and therefore, the said transaction is hit by lis pendens. Although, in the relief clause no specific prayer is made for cancellation of subsequent sale-deeds, including the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, but the factum of execution of sale-deed in his favour by respondents No.3 and 4 is clearly discernible from the amended plaint. Taking into account this sort of pleadings, the petitioner approached learned trial Court by laying application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC for summoning some additional witnesses for substantiating his defence.

(3.) Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments, by the order impugned, rejected the application by citing the reason that suit has materially progressed and it is at the final stage, therefore, solely on account of delay, application cannot be entertained.