Civil Revision No. 5983 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5983 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26-10-2009 Lakhmir Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Anil Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Suryakant Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in revision petition, aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 19.8.2009, whereby the plaintiff-respondent has been permitted to amend the plaint so as to incorporate the relief for the decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 11.3.2005. The plaintiff has filed suit for injunction in respect of intention of the defendants to sell the land even though they have purportedly entered into an agreement to sell the land measuring 37 kanals 7 marlas with the plaintiff on 11.3.2005. As per the terms of the Civil Revision No. 5983 of 2009 [2] agreement, the last date for execution of the sale deed was 6.5.2006. The suit for injunction was filed on 18.5.2005 on the ground that the defendants want to alienate the suit land to some other person by selling the same even though the defendants have agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff. In the said suit, the issues were framed. When the case was fixed for evidence, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint on 22.5.2006 so as to incorporate a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell. It is the said application, which has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide the order impugned in the present revision petition. The trial Court has found that though in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the amendment cannot be allowed after trial has commenced, but since no evidence has been led by any of the parties, therefore, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaint. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an argument that the amendment could not have been allowed after the issues were framed. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr., AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1433. In the aforesaid case, the plaitniff has sought to amend the plaint after the affidavits were filed by the parties and dates were fixed for cross-examination of the witnesses. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment which is in respect of the commencement of the trial, is of no help to the petitioner. Civil Revision No. 5983 of 2009 [3] The plaintiff has sought to amend the plaint soon after the date for performance of the agreement has come to an end on 6.5.2006. Such application was filed even before any evidence was led by the parties. Since the suit is at its threshold and the plaintiff has sought to incorporate the relief, in respect of which cause of action arose to the petitioner, only few days earlier, therefore, it cannot be said that by allowing the amendment, the learned trial Court has committed any patent illegality or irregularity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised another argument that the nature of the suit has been completely changed i.e., from the suit for injunction to the suit for specific performance. Even the said argument is not tenable. The plaintiff has sought decree for permanent injunction before the sale deed could be executed in terms of the agreement dated 11.3.2005. Therefore, on the said date, the suit for injunction alone was maintainable. The plaintiff has sought to amend the plaint soon after the date for performance of the agreement has come to an end. Though the plaintiff, by way of amendment, has sought the decree for specific performance, but it is in the same sequence of events. Such amendment will avoid multiplicity of litigation inter-se parties. Thus, I do not find any merit in the said argument as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the amendment sought lacks bona-fide and such amendment cannot be allowed. Reliance is placed upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court Civil Revision No. 5983 of 2009 [4] in Banta Singh Ganga Singh and others v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and others, AIR 1974 Punjab and Haryana 247 (Full Bench). The said argument is misconceived. The plaintiff has filed suit for injunction even before the expiry of the date for performance of the agreement to sell, in view of the intention of the defendants to sell the property to somebody else. The plaintiff has sought amendment soon after the last date for performance of the agreement has expired. The sequence of events rather points out lack of bona-fide on the part of the petitioner and not on the part of the plaintiff. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 26-10-2009 ds