Civil Revision No. 3510 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3510 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.08.2009 Karta Ram and others ....Petitioners Versus Shyam Lal Mittal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No.14338-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner are exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-4. CR No. 3510 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.5.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent for amendment of the plaint, has been allowed. The plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner/defendant from alienating the property to any other person on the plea, that there was an agreement to sell between the parties, and to defeat the right of the Civil Revision No. 3510 of 2009 (O&M) -2- plaintiff/respondent, the petitioners were trying to take steps to alienate the property to third party. On expiry of period fixed for execution of conveyance deed, application under Order 6 Rule 17 was moved for amendment of the plaint, to change the suit from injunction to one for specific performance. The learned trial Court by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Dipender Kaur Sethi, 2005 Civil Court Cases 354 and the judgment of this Court in Col. Satwant Singh Vs. Uma Bakshi, 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 169, allowed the application. Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, for the reason, that on the date of filing of suit for injunction, the remedy of specific performance was available to the plaintiff/respondent, as the suit was filed on 17.9.2007, whereas the date fixed in the agreement for execution of conveyance deed was 30.5.2007. The contention raised is as per the settled law, that a suit for injunction cannot be converted into a suit for specific performance, in case, the cause of action to file a suit for specific performance was available in view of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the contention raised cannot be accepted. The case set up by the plaintiff, was that the date of execution of sale deed was extended to 20.5.2008, therefore, on the date of filing of the suit for injunction, the cause of action to file the suit for specific performance Civil Revision No. 3510 of 2009 (O&M) -3- had not arisen. The order passed by the learned Court below is in consonance with the settled law that the suit for injunction filed prior to date fixed for execution of conveyance deed, can be amended by invoking the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the cause of action arises to maintain the suit for specific performance. The order passed by learned Court, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 20, 2009 R.S.