C. R. No. 2858 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2858 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 03, 2010 Sachin Walia .... Petitioner Vs. Charu Walia .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 17.02.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, thereby allowing application for amendment of plaint filed by plaintiff-respondent. Plaintiff and defendant are brothers. Plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that the plaintiff, the defendant and their mother and two sisters are joint owners in possession of the suit property being legal heirs of Ramesh Walia – father of the parties, and each of them has 1/5th share in the suit property, but the defendant wanted to dispose of the entire suit property illegally. The plaintiff sought injunction restraining C. R. No. 2858 of 2010 2 the defendant from alienating more than 1/5th share in the suit property. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that vide decree dated 16.05.1973 passed in favour of the defendant against his grandmother Champawati, the defendant herein became owner in possession of the entire suit property. The plaintiff, by way of amendment, sought to challenge the said judgment and decree dated 16.05.1973 on various grounds. The said amendment has been allowed by the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that suit to challenge the judgment and decree dated 16.05.1973 is barred by limitation. However, this question can be decided by the trial court after recording evidence because stand of the plaintiff is that he came to know of said judgment and decree only when the same were pleaded by the defendant in the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the plaintiff, by way of amendment, has converted suit for permanent injunction into suit for declaration and therefore, the plaintiff could withdraw the suit for injunction and file fresh suit for declaration. The contention has no merit because the fact, which has allegedly come to the knowledge of the plaintiff through written statement, is the basis for amendment of plaint. C. R. No. 2858 of 2010 3 There is no necessity of forcing the plaintiff to withdraw the instant suit and file another suit unnecessarily, when the same purpose can be served by amendment of the plaint. It may be added that the suit is at the initial stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not even aware if issues have been framed in the case or not. Replication was filed by the plaintiff on 29.07.2009 and amendment application was moved by the plaintiff on 08.09.2009. Thus, there has not been unnecessary delay in filing the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the defendant, during pendency of the suit, has since sold the suit property. However, this circumstance shows only the dishonesty of the defendant himself and has nothing to do with the amendment sought by the plaintiff- respondent. When questioned as to why the defendant has filed the instant revision petition when he has already sold the suit property, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is answerable to his vendee. However, when questioned if the defendant disclosed the factum of pendency of the suit in the sale deed, counsel for the petitioner expressed ignorance. The sale made by the defendant during pendency of the suit would be hit by doctrine of lis pendens and it is not obligatory on the part of plaintiff to implead the vendee as a party to the suit. It is for the defendant or the vendee to take any step in this direction, if so advised. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no infirmity in the C. R. No. 2858 of 2010 4 impugned order of the trial court. The said order is perfectly justified and does not suffer from any infirmity, so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 03, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE