Civil Revision No. 7111 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7111 of 2011 Date of decision. 21.11.2011 Chand Singh .... Petitioner Versus Smt. Birmati and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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: Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. The plaintiff Chand Singh has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panipat vide which his application for amendment of the plaint under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC has been dismissed. The plaintiff has brought a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.01.2006. He had claimed that after execution Civil Revision No. 7111 of 2011 --2-- of the agreement of sale dated 20.01.2006, the defendants approached him for payment of the balance sale consideration and on their request, he paid a sum of Rs.7,90,400/- in total to the defendants and a full payment agreement to sell dated 24.04.2006 was written in the presence of the witnesses. According to him, due to typographical mistake in the head note of the plaint as well as in the prayer clause, the plaintiff could not mention the agreement of sale dated 24.4.2006 after 20.01.2006. He has further submitted that he also failed to seek the relief of possession of the land in question because he was dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. Hence he has made prayer for allowing him to incorporate the aforesaid pleas. The application is opposed by the defendants. According to them, the alleged agreements are forged and fabricated documents and they were never executed by them. They have denied even the payment made by the plaintiff to them of the sale consideration. They have also claimed that they never delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and therefore, there was no occasion for them to dispossess him. It is alleged that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend the plaint for seeking a decree of possession. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application of the plaintiff vide the impugned order. I have heard Shri Ajay Ghangas, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Civil Revision No. 7111 of 2011 --3-- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agreement dated 24.04.2006 has already been pleaded in para no.2 of the plaint whereby the plaintiff has claimed to have paid the entire sale consideration to the defendants. According to him, he only prayed for making a mention of this agreement in the head note of the plaint as well as the relief clause. According to him, he also wanted to add to the relief clause a prayer for a decree of possession as he has been dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the suit. According to him, these amendments were not going to cause any prejudice to the other side and learned trial court had erred in declining the prayer for the same. When the agreement dated 24.04.2006 has already been pleaded in para no.2 of the plaint with its contents and effect, there is no need to incorporate the same in the head note of the plaint or the relief clause. The relief of specific performance is to be sought on the basis of the original agreement and not on the subsequent writing vide which the balance sale consideration has been alleged to have been paid to the defendants. The plea regarding the said agreement is on the plaint and the amendment sought in this regard is nothing but superfluous. However, coming to the aspect of addition of the prayer for decree of possession, it has to be taken note of that the defendants have taken the stand that possession of the land in question was never given to the plaintiff. The copy of plaint on the record is dated 16.5.2007. The application for amendment has been filed with 29.09.2011 as the date thereon. The question is as to whether he was in possession of the suit Civil Revision No. 7111 of 2011 --4-- property on the date of filing the suit and when he was dispossessed. He has nowhere complained to the court during the course of the proceedings nor to any other authority that he has been dispossessed of the suit property. He did not even plead in the application for amendment as to on which date, he was dispossessed. Without pleading as to when he has been dispossessed, he cannot be allowed just to add a few lines in the relief clause to seek decree of possession. Unless he mentions the date of his dispossession, it cannot be said that his dispossession is a recent development, which could not be incorporated in the plaint before commencement of the trial. So, this amendment is barred by the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. For these reasons, I do not find learned trial court to have erred in declining the prayer for amendment of the plaint by way of the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, merits dismissal and is dismissed. 21.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE