C.R.No.1445 of 2011(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1445 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 09.3.2011 Balbir Parashar ….Petitioner Vs. Babu Ram Verma and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J C.M.No.6625-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexures P.1 to 5 are taken on record and exemption from filing the certified copies is granted. C.R.No.1445 of 2011 Plaintiff-petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad whereby his application for impleading the subsequent purchasers as party- defendants as also for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit No.656 dated 12.1.2002 for specific performance of agreement dated 14.1.1999 against the defendants-respondents. Defendant-respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed separate replies (P.4 & P.5 respectively) and inter alia submitted C.R.No.1445 of 2011(O&M) #2# that defendant-respondent No.1 had already executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 21.6.2000 in pursuance of agreement dated 14.1.1999 and now the agreement stands cancelled and settled and the plaintiff-petitioner returned the same in original to the defendant-respondent No.1 by making an endorsement on the back side of the agreement in Hindi. During the pendency of present suit, an application dated 25.9.2006 (P.1) for impleadment of subsequent purchasers as party defendants and amendment of the plaint dated 12.1.2002 (P.3) was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Upon notice, the defendant-respondents filed their reply dated 17.10.2006 opposing the application on the ground that altogether a new case will be set up and the application is filed just to prolong the matter as the plaintiff-petitioner had already availed sufficient opportunities to conclude his evidence. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the application vide the impugned order, hence the present petition. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner argues that the learned trial Court has grossly erred while dismissing the application dated 25.9.2006 (P.1) as the subsequent purchasers are very much necessary and proper party to be impleaded for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed that the subsequent purchasers will step into the shoes of their vendors. It is also argued that the learned trial Court has recorded a perverse finding by observing that the plaintiff has not concluded his evidence despite affording sufficient opportunities. C.R.No.1445 of 2011(O&M) #3# After giving my anxious thought to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, I find the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner devoid of any merit. It is not in dispute that the suit for specific performance was filed on 12.1.2002 (P.3) by the plaintiff-petitioner and defendants- respondents filed their written statement (P.4 & P.5 respectively) on 14.6.2003. After framing of the issues, the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. The alleged sale deeds dated 14.2.2000, which are sought to be challenged after proposed impleadment and amendment were allegedly executed in favour of proposed defendants-respondent Nos.3 & 4 prior to the filing of civil suit and thus the plaintiff-petitioner had full knowledge of the same at the time of filing of the civil suit and he could have challenged the same at the relevant time. In my opinion, learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment sought by the application dated 25.9.2006 (P.1) is beyond the period of limitation. Even as per present pleadings, undisputedly, plaintiff-petitioner has in the civil suit filed on 12.1.2002 already availed two effective opportunities to adduce his evidence but he has failed to conclude the same. In case the amendment is allowed, a new case will start, which would amount to de novo trial at this stage after a period of 9 years. There is nothing on record to substantiate that the petitioner has exercised any diligence much less to say that the due diligence was exercised by him while pursuing his case for an omission, which is sought to be rectified by way of proposed amendment and impleadment. The law is well settled that after the amendment of Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are to be applied strictly in view of its C.R.No.1445 of 2011(O&M) #4# proviso appended thereunder at such a belated stage. If at all, the suit property has been sold by the defendants-respondents as alleged by the plaintiff-petitioner to any subsequent purchasers then the vendees will step into the shoes of their vendors and will be bound by the outcome of the civil suit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. March 09, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE