HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.Nos.3676, 3677, 5360 and 5361 of 2009 Dt.19.11.2010 C.R.P.NO.3676 of 2009 Between: B.Rajesh Reddy ..Petitioner And Vijay Singh and others ..Respondents C.R.P.NO.3677 of 2009 Between: D.Narasimha Reddy (died) per L.Rs. ..Petitioners And Vijay Singh and others ..Respondents C.R.P.NO.5360 OF 2009 Between: B.Rajesh Reddy ..Petitioner And Vijay Singh and others ..Respondents C.R.P.NO.5361 OF 2009 Between: D.Narsimha Reddy (died) per L.Rs. ..Petitioners And Vijay Singh and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.Nos.3676, 3677, 5360 and 5361 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.Nos.5360 and 5361 of 2009 are filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the dismissal of their applications filed seeking amendment of the plaint in two identical suits for specific performance. C.R.P.No.5360 of 2009 is concerned with the order of the court below dated 17.7.2009 rejecting I.A.No.413 of 2009 in O.S.No.16400 of 2003. Similarly, C.R.P.No.5361 of 2009 is filed questioning the order of the court below of the even date rejecting I.A.No.415 of 2009 in O.S.No.2626 of 2004. Both the suits were filed by the respective plaintiffs i.e., petitioner in each of the C.R.P., against respondents- defendants 1 to 3. It is alleged in the plaint that defendants 1 to 3 along with their late father Sheetal Singh and their elder brothers Shanker Singh and Manohar Singh agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and defendants 7 to 11, developers, were joined as consenting parties to the agreement. Late Sheetal Singh is survived by defendants 1 to 3, whereas Shanker Singh is survived by defendant No. 4 and defendants 5 and 6 are legal heirs of another brother Manohar Singh. After the suit was filed some time in December, 2003, defendants 1 to 3 pointed that they have sold the property in favour of defendant No.11. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought impleadment of defendant No.11 in the year 2004. The said implead application was allowed and defendant No.11 was impleaded in the suit and he also filed written statement asserting that he is in possession of the property and he has also constructed compound wall by virtue of the title conveyed to him by defendants 1 to 7. Consequently, the plaintiff filed application of amendment of plaint seeking insertion of paras 7(a) and 7(b) to the extent of the disputing the claim of defendant No.11. The said application was contested and under the impugned order, the court below proceeded to reject the same on the ground that even according to the plaintiffs, defendant No.11 had trespassed and constructed compound wall in the year 2004, but while filing the implead application I.A.No.1342 of 2004 the plaintiffs have not made any such allegation as against defendant No.11, the present application for amendment having moved after lapse of six months and the same was rejected by the court below. The said identical order of that nature is passed in both the suits referred to above, in which similar applications for amendment were moved. Petitioner-plaintiff in the respective suits also moved application I.A.No.492 of 2009 in O.S.No.16400 of 2003 seeking permission to file rejoinder, so far as defendant 11 is concerned. Similar application I.A.No.493 of 2009 was also filed in O.S.No.2626 of 2004. By the order of the court below dated 5.6.2009 in the respective suits, the said applications were dismissed. Questioning the same, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed C.R.P.Nos.3676 and 3677 of 2009 respectively. Heard both the learned counsel on either side and examined the matter at length and after hearing both the learned counsel, I am of the view that the applications moved by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint ought to have been allowed by the court below in view of the fact that the plaint originally filed had no reference no defendant No.11. It appears that he is subsequent transferee from the original defendant in the suit. Whether the said defendant No.11 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and whether the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance succeeds against all the defendants are questions which would fall for consideration in the trial of the suits. Defendant No.11 having already been impleaded in either of the suits and on the basis of his assertion that he has purchased the property and is in possession and has constructed compound wall around it, the plaintiff had to make necessary averments in the plaint so far as defendant No.11 is concerned, the proposed amendment to the plaint relates only to that part. It is not as if that nature of the suit would be changed nor there is any impediment under the Limitation Act or otherwise. The application for amendment in the respective suits, therefore deserves to be allowed and the court below could not have rejected the same on the ground that six months have passed. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to contend that under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, suit for possession must be filed within six months. However, the said provision has no application when the suits are in the nature of specific performance and there is no impediment for seeking possession against defendant No.11 even on the date on which the application for amendment is moved consequently. Therefore, the impugned orders in C.R.P.Nos.5360 and 5361 2009 are set aside and the same are allowed. In so far as C.R.P.Nos.3676 and 3677 of 2009 are concerned, the application for filing rejoinder is clearly misconceived and no purpose would be served even otherwise as the amendment of plaint has been allowed. These two revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 19.11.2010 kpr