Civil Revision No.5851 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5851 of 2011 Date of Decision: 23.9.2011 Naveen Sobti .....Petitioner Versus Bhupinder Singh Sandhu & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is, that Naveen Sobti son of Surinder Nath Sobti petitioner-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.2.2007, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Bhupinder Singh Sandhu son of Harbans Singh Sandhu and others respondent-defendants (for short “the defendants”) from alienating the land in dispute in any manner. 2. During the course of pendency of suit, the plaintiff filed the application (Annexure P1) for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC, so as to include the information in it, to the effect that he has also moved an application dated 1.12.2007 to the SSP Jalandhar against the defendants, for taking action under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the application for amendment of the plaint, in the manner depicted hereinbefore. 3. The defendants refuted the prayer of the plaintiff and filed the reply Civil Revision No.5851 of 2011 -2- (Annexure P3), stoutly denying all other allegations contained in the application for amendment of plaint and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial court dismissed the application, by virtue of impugned order dated 5.5.2011 (Annexure P4), which, in substance, is (paras 4 & 6) as under:- “4. After hearing rival contentions of the parties and perusing the file, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present application. In the present case, issues were framed on 27.2.2009. The plaintiff availed as many as eight opportunities to adduce his complete evidence, due to which the same is closed by order. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of defendants. Defendants have availed two opportunities to adduce their evidence. However, plaintiff moved the present application on 7.2.2011 for the amendment of the plaint. Though, it is averred in the present application that plaintiff moved the applicants to SSP, Jalandhar on 1.12.2007 and 16.8.2007 after filing of the present suit, but it is pointed out that plaintiff was fully aware of the fact of moving of applications/complaints to SSP, Jalandhar during the pendency of the present suit, but he failed to seek amendment of the plaint earlier for the reasons best known to him. Moreover, PW-1 Naveen Sobti conceded in his cross- examination recorded on 12.11.2010 that he did not move any application/complaint to the Police. Though, PW-1 Naveen Sobti in Para No.9 of the affidavit has mentioned that he moved the complaints to SSP, Jalandhar on 1.12.2007 and 16.8.2007 for registration of the FIR against the defendants, under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, but no effort was made by the plaintiff to move the application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the said fact. Thus, the present application moved by the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 6. Before parting with my discussion, it is also pointed out that plaintiff has sought the relief of Specific Performance of the agreement dated 19.2.2007 allegedly executed by defendants in his favour pertaining to the disputed property. The amendment sought by the plaintiff is not essential for granting of relief of Specific Performance to the plaintiff, ultimately, if any. It is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement and the factum of readiness and willingness to get the relief of Specific Performance in the present suit. The filing of the complaints with the SSP, Jalandhar or proving the said fact is not going to effect the merit of the present case in any way.” 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision No.5851 of 2011 -3- 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 7. As is evident from the record that plaintiff filed a simple suit for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.2.2007 against the defendants. In order to succeed, he has to prove the validity, genuineness, consideration, readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. The proposed amendment, so as to include the additional information, in regard of moving the application to SSP Jalandhar against the defendants, is not at all relevant to decide the real controversy between the parties. 8. Moreover, the trial Court has recorded the cogent grounds and rightly negatived the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff, vide impugned order in this relevant connection. 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 (Annexure P4) is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. 10. Needless to state that nothing observed here-in-before would, in any manner, reflect on the merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding this petition. 23.9.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE