Civil Revision No. 1151 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1151 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.08.2009 Jaswinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Mewa Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 1151 of 2004 titled Jaswinder Singh Vs. Mewa Singh and others and Civil Revision No. 3435 of 2004 titled Smt. Sewa Kaur Vs. Jaswinder Singh and others, as common questions of law and fact are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 1151 of 2004. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.1.2004, passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioner, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint, was partly allowed. Civil Revision No. 1151 of 2004 (O&M) -2- The plaintiff/petitioner brought a suit for specific performance of two agreements i.e. one dated 12.12.1993 said to have been executed by defendant No. 1 and another agreement dated 16.1.1994 said to have been executed by defendant No. 3. The plaintiff/petitioner pleaded that after entering into agreement with the petitioner, the property stood sold to defendant No. 2, therefore, he was also impleaded as party. The suit was filed on 27.4.1994. It was after expiry of about five years that the application for amendment of pleadings was moved to plead the fact that subsequent to the filing of the suit, defendants No. 1 and 3 had entered into another agreement dated 30.8.1995, admitting therein that on earlier occasion also they had agreed to sell the property through the plaintiff. He also sought to plead that the affidavit was also executed by the defendants on 8.9.1995. The other amendment sought was to seek declaration, that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 2 was null and void and not binding on the rights of the petitioner. The learned trial Court accepted the amendment qua pleading of subsequent agreement and affidavit, whereas amendment sought to challenge the sale deed was declined. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned part vide which the part of amendment qua challenge to the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 stands declined, whereas respondent No. 3 has challenged the impugned part of order vide which the amendment application was partly allowed, by filing civil revision No. 3435 of 2004 titled Sewa Kaur Vs. Jaswinder Singh and others. Civil Revision No. 1151 of 2004 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the learned trial Court committed an error in declining the part of application though it was necessary, as the property sold to defendant No. 2 was the one which was agreed to be sold to the petitioner and, therefore, was subject matter of the suit. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally mis-conceived. The amendment which is necessary for adjudication of the lis between the parties can only be allowed by way of amendment. In the present case, the amendment sought does not in any way effects the lis i.e. the suit for specific performance to enforce an agreement to sell. The requirement of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was, therefore, not met to allow the application for amendment to challenge the sale deed. There being no merit in this revision petition, it is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Mr Amit Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3/the petitioner in civil revision No. 3435 of 2004, has challenged the impugned part of the order vide which the amendment was allowed permitting the petitioner herein to plead the subsequent fact i.e. agreement dated 30.8.1995 and affidavit dated 8.9.1995. The contention of Sh. Amit Jain, learned counsel, is that the Court has committed an error in allowing the amendment after lapse of more than five years, as the suit was filed in the year 1994, whereas the present application was moved in the year 1999. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3/petitioner in civil revision No. 3435 of 2004, that as the suit is based on cause of action, said to Civil Revision No. 1151 of 2004 (O&M) -4- have arisen in the year 1993-94, i.e. at the time of execution of agreement. The cause of action, therefore, could not be substituted by way of amendment. The contentions raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The amendment sought is directly connected with the lis between the parties, therefore, amendment was necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case. Mere delay in filing the amendment application cannot be a ground to decline the amendment, nor the Court was required to go into the merits of the amendment sought to see whether it was permissible or not. Once it was proved, that the amendment sought was necessary for the Court to determine the dispute between the parties effectively, and specially in view of the fact that the documents were already brought on record and duly exhibited, no fault can be found with this part of impugned order also. Thus civil revision No. 3435 of 2004 is also ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 12, 2009 R.S.