C.R. No.5304 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5304 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.10.2009 Kuldeep Singh .....Petitioner Versus Jasbir Singh ...Respondent Present: Mr. Tribhavan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The civil revision is against dismissal of an application for amendment of a plaint sought on the basis that two other persons by names Nirmal Singh s/o Saudagar Singh and Baljit Kaur w/o Joginder Singh had purported to have purchased the property from the 1st defendant subsequent to the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and that subsequent purchasers were required to be impleaded as parties. The plaintiff's contention was that he came to know about the alleged sale deed in favour of the proposed parties had been registered on 02.05.2005, that is on the same day when the suit had been instituted, only just before filing the application for amendment. C.R. No.5304 of 2006 (O&M) -2- 2. The plaintiff's application for impleadment of parties and for consequential amendment was resisted by the defendant on a contention that no application for amendment shall be entertained subsequent to the commencement of the trial. The Court below upheld the contention raised by the defendant and dismissed the application. 3. It must be borne in mind that the principles relating to amendment shall be examined in the context of what is in controversy and whether the amendment proposed will have any bearing for a just decision in the case. The permission to allow for such adjournment or otherwise will again depend on the conduct of the party such as when if there is an extraordinary delay or if the party was trying to resile from an admission and put the opposite party to any prejudice, the Court shall be loathe to permit such amendments. The amendment which is sought is for impleadment of parties, who are admittedly subsequent purchasers to the agreement propounded by the plaintiff. In a suit for specific performance, subsequent purchasers are necessary parties under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act. In the absence of subsequent purchasers, even a decree for specific performance will be meaningless and will not bind the subsequent purchasers. The question whether the subsequent purchasers are been bona fide purchasers without notice of the agreement will invariably depend on the oral evidence adduced before the trial C.R. No.5304 of 2006 (O&M) -3- Court. The contention of the defendant cannot itself amount to proof that the plaintiff knew about the sale in favour of the proposed parties or that the sale itself had been executed only at the instance of the plaintiff. These contentions will have a bearing to the merits of the defence and the entitlement or otherwise of the plaintiff to secure the relief for specific performance that shall be established in a full-fledged trial. 4. If there was a delay, it is a delay which should be condoned on putting the plaintiff to terms as to costs. The suit was instituted on 02.05.2005 and the amendment was filed within one year. The application for amendment itself is not barred by any law of limitation, but the plea in opposition is on the basis of the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code that amendment shall not be normally permitted after the commencement of trial. In Salem Advocate Bar Association-II (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while upholding the validity of the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, had occasion to deal with each one of the clauses brought out through the Amending Acts of 1999 and 2002. While the amended provision itself provides that "no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, the exception is when the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The defendant has not even raised C.R. No.5304 of 2006 (O&M) -4- the plea of the sale in favour of the third parties. The registration of the document itself has come about on the same day when the suit was presented. The plaintiff had moved the application on an express averment that he came to know about the transaction only recently and he, therefore, sought for the amendment. These averments, in my view, are sufficient to justify the application. By the fact that the trial had commenced and again, the fact that by the pendency of the civil revision, the conduct of the suit has been delayed, the petitioner shall bear the costs of Rs.2500/- for having the application admitted. 5. The order of the trial Cout is set aside and the application for amendment as sought for by the plaintiff is allowed on payment of Rs.2500/- as costs to the defendant, which shall be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Needless to state that the trial Court shall direct appropriate steps to be taken to serve notice of the plaint to the newly impleaded parties, secure their statements defence and proceed in accordance with law. The civil revision is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 20, 2009 Pankaj*