C.R. No. 3776 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3776 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: January 9, 2009 Sardool Singh .. Petitioner v. Mohinder Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gourav Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant for permission to amend the written statement was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-defendant entered into an agreement to sell his residential plot No. 1133, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali to respondent No.1- plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 22.10.2000 for a total consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 4,15,000/- were paid as earnest money. The sale deed having not been executed, civil suit was filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff on 21.3.2003, in which even written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant on 16.7.2003. On 21.1.2006, an application was filed for amendment of the written statement and a plea was sought to be taken that in view of subsequent developments, the petitioner now wanted to withdraw the admissions made in the written statement regarding his readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed pertaining to the plot. The application having been rejected by the learned court below, the petitioner-defendant is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to the agreement to sell in question, the petitioner had agreed to sell the same plot to one Harpal Singh on 5.8.1998. On account of his not getting the sale deed registered, his earnest money was forfeited. However, he instead of filing a suit for specific performance merely filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid by him. The C.R. No. 3776 of 2008 [2] pendency of the litigation was intimated to respondent No.1- plaintiff and the property in question was sold to respondent No.1-plaintiff at a lesser price considering the fact that it was under litigation. After filing of the suit, respondent No.1-plaintiff even filed a complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in which Harpal Singh appeared as a witness of the complainant. It is on account of this development that the petitioner-defendant wanted to incorporate these facts in the written statement already filed by him to plead that both respondent No.1- plaintiff and the earlier vendee-Harpal Singh having connived, the applicant would not like to sell the property, but would raise construction on the plot in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff submitted that the application was filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement at the fag end of the trial when evidence in defence was going on. The written statement was filed way back in July, 2003. Even otherwise, the plea, which is sought to be taken by way of amendment, is totally irrelevant for the purpose of decision of the suit. The court is not deciding the issues on the basis of the intention of the petitioner, rather, the court is to interpret the terms of the agreement and the fact as to whether at the relevant time fixed for execution of the sale deed, the parties were ready and willing to adhere to the terms of the agreement or not and accordingly, respondent No.1-plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for or not. He further submitted that the admissions made in the written statement should not be permitted to be withdrawn in the manner these are sought. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The agreement to sell, which was executed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, is dated 20.10.2000 in which initially the last date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 31.12.2000, which was extended upto 31.3.2003. The suit was filed on 21.3.2003 in which the petitioner even filed his written statement on 16.7.2003. In the written statement originally filed, a stand was taken by the petitioner that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, i.e., execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration and it was only due to pendency of the civil suit filed by Harpal Singh, vendee in the earlier agreement to sell, and a writ petition in the High Court that the same could not be executed. The suit is at the stage of evidence of the petitioner- defendant. The amendment is sought to be made in the written statement to withdraw the stand regarding the petitioner's being ready and willing to execute the sale deed. It is further sought to be pleaded that in view of the fact that the earlier vendee-Harpal Singh had appeared as a witness of the complainant in the complaint filed by respondent No.1 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code C.R. No. 3776 of 2008 [3] against the petitioner and on account of their connivance, the petitioner was no more interested to sell the plot and want to retain the same. In my opinion, the facts, which are sought to be pleaded in support of the plea to withdraw the admissions already made, are not sufficient explanation for withdrawal of the admissions already made in the written statement filed regarding his readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed, that too at the fag end of the trial when the evidence of the petitioner-defendant was going on. The learned court below has dealt with the submissions of the parties in great detail and dismissed the prayer of the petitioner by passing a speaking order, in which I do not find any error of jurisdiction. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.1.2009 mk