CR No.3224 of 2010 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.3224 of 2010 Decided on: 24.05.2010 **** Kasturi Lal . . . .Petitioner Versus Jarnail Singh and others . . . .Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.K.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Panchkula dated 20.4.2010 by which an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) at the instance of the petitioners has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 11.5.1989. During the pendency of the suit, land in question was acquired and compensation has been determined by the Collector, which is lying un-disbursed. In this background, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was filed to add a new para No.13-A in the plaint to the effect that “and the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the compensation amount on CR No.3224 of 2010 - 2 - account of acquisition of the suit land lying un-disbursed with the Land Acquisition Collector Panchkula/State of Haryana.” With this amendment in the plaint, the plaintiff sought amendment in the heading of the plaint as well as in the prayer clause. The said application was contested by the defendants by way of reply in which it was alleged that the question of acquisition was within the knowledge of the plaintiff since 13.10.2003. The learned Court below dismissed the application with the following observations: - “In the present case, the respondent/defendant have supported their contentions, with a copy of application, dated 13.10.2003 filed by the applicant/ plaintiffs to the Land Acquisition Office, qua the payment of the land in question. Moreover, the respondents/defendants have also been cross-examined in lieu of the acquisition of the suit land. Therefore, it is evident, that the applicants/plaintiffs had knowledge about the fact sought to be amended, at least since 13.10.2003. But, the present application has been filed on 23.01.2010, that also at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments. Therefore, as per the law laid down under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the parties could have sought for the said amendment, much earlier as such, this court comes to the conclusion that in spite of the knowledge or the changed circumstances, the applicants/plaintiffs did not prefer to raise the matter, before, CR No.3224 of 2010 - 3 - as they had knowledge about said fact, since 13.10.2003. Hence, the present application is not under the exemption clause/proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC due to which, the same is dismissed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prayer for amendment should not have been declined by the learned trial Court as it would be in the interest of justice to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Although the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be attractive but his own act and conduct disentitles him to seek the said relief because, admittedly, the application has been filed at the stage of rebuttal and arguments and further this fact has not been disclosed in the application that the plaintiff had filed an application on 13.10.2003 to the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation of the land in question. It is now well settled by the Apex Court in the case reported as “S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Versus Jagannath” AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853 that if a litigant comes to the Court with unclean hands then his case has to be thrown even at the threshold. Moreover, if the plaintiff had the knowledge on 13.10.2003 then why the application has been moved on 23.1.2010 after the expiry of period of seven years, therefore, I do not find any reason to differ with the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 20.4.2010 and as such the present revision petition is dismissed in limine, though, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 24.05.2010 JUDGE CR No.3224 of 2010 - 4 - Vivek