IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3076 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 9, 2011. Smt. Bedo. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Anand and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 13.04.2011, Annexure P3 vide which application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was accepted by learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, respondent-defendant No.1, Sunder entered into an agreement to sell the CR No.3076 of 2011 land in dispute with respondent No.1-plaintiff on 06.02.2007 for a sale consideration of `40,31,125/- and an amount of `10,31,125/- was received as earnest money as part sale consideration and the date of execution of sale deed was settled as 04.02.2008. However, before expiry of the said date, respondent No.2-defendant No.1 transferred his rights in the property in dispute in favour of his wife i.e. defendant No.2 vide relinquishment deed dated 17.05.2007. Thereafter, respondent No.3-defendant No.2, Smt.Ram Shri wife of defendant No.1 sold the said property to present petitioner- defendant No.3 vide sale deed dated 15.10.2007. Hence, initially respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the relinquishment deed dated 17.05.2007 and subsequent mutation entered pursuance to that deed and subsequent sale deed executed in favour of present petitioner and subsequent mutation, are null and void and not binding on the rights of respondent No.1- plaintiff. During pendency of the suit and after expiry of the date fixed for the registration of sale deed i.e. 04.02.2008, the present application was filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint for converting the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 06.02.2007 with a consequential relief of declaration and permanent injunction, which has been allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order, against which the present revision petition has been filed. It is pertinent to reproduce Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:- “17. Amendment of pleadings— The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the 2 CR No.3076 of 2011 purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” In the present case, trial has not yet commenced and even the issues have not been framed so far. Application for amendment of plaint was filed after expiry of period fixed for execution of sale deed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant No.3 that respondent No.1-plaintiff was having cause of action to seek relief of specific performance of the agreement when he filed the present suit as earlier to filing of the suit the property in dispute was already transferred by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and by defendant No.2 to present petitioner-defendant No.3. However, the said plea cannot be accepted. Even if defendant No.1 has relinquished his rights in the property in dispute in favour of his wife i.e. defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 further transferred the same to present petitioner-defendant No.3 in an illegal manner before the expiry of the period fixed for execution of sale deed as per agreement to sell dated 06.02.2007, the plaintiff could not seek relief of specific performance till the expiry of period fixed for registration of sale deed. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. 3 CR No.3076 of 2011 There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 9, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4