Civil Revision No.6019 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6019 of 2011 Date of Decision:29.09.2011 Sagan Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Gurdeep Singh alias Gurdeep and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Sagan Kumar son of Surjit Singh-petitioner- plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Gurdeep Singh alias Gurdeep and others-respondent-defendants(for short “the defendants”) for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 07.01.2005 with possession. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application (Annexure P-1) for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, so as to change the title of the suit and to introduce new facts to the effect that although, as per recital in the indicated agreement, the defendants have put him(plaintiff) in possession of the suit land, but in the wake of his detention in Jail in a case under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) and taking the benefit of his absence, defendant Nos.3 to 5 forcibly cultivated and illegally occupied the disputed land. The proposed amendment was stated to be relevant for the just decision of the case. Civil Revision No.6019 of 2011 2 3. The defendants refuted the prayer of the plaintiff and filed the reply (Annexure P-2), inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the application, at this belated stage. It was alleged that numerous opportunities were granted to the plaintiff, including four last opportunities, but he failed to conclude his entire evidence. When last opportunity was granted, then the plaintiff moved the application for amendment of the plaint, in order to delay the disposal of the case. It was also explained that the application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed by the trial Court, in which it was held that he(plaintiff) failed to prove his possession. The indicated order with regard to possession, was upheld upto the Hon'ble High Court. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the application for amendment in the plaint and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application(Annexure P-1) for amendment of the plaint, by virtue of impugned order dated 05.09.2011. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the petitioner- plaintiff preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the proposed amendment in the plaint was essential, so, the trial Court committed a mistake in dismissing the application(Annexure P-1) of the plaintiff, for amendment of the plaint, sans merit. 8. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff filed a simple suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 07.01.2005. In that Civil Revision No.6019 of 2011 3 eventuality, in order to succeed, he, inter alia, is required to prove the validity & genuineness of the agreement, passing of consideration and his ready & willingness, to perform his part of the contract. If it is proved on record that, the possession of the suit land was actually delivered to him in pursuance of the agreement to sell and was legally occupied by defendant Nos.3 to 5, then the relief of possession is inherent in a suit for a decree of specific performance of the contract. In my view, the additional facts that the plaintiff was arrested and detained in Jail in a case under NDPS Act, are not at all required to be added in the plaint, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties, as urged on his behalf. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto-sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 9. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned order in this context. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 11. Needless to mention that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the case, in any manner, during the course of hearing of the trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present controversy only. September 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.6019 of 2011 4 C.M.No.23976-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.6019 of 2011 Present: Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE