CR No.4470 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4470 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 13.10.2009 **** Saroj Rani and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Anil Kumar Sareen and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22nd April, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the plaint moved by the Predecessor-in- Interest of the petitioners, has been dismissed. 2) The Predecessor-in-Interest of the petitioners (late Sh. Inderpal Chawla) filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 4th September, 1998, which was allegedly executed in his favour by defendant No.1 and 2. Those defendants are alleged to have sold the suit property and executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 after entering into agreement to sell with the deceased-plaintiff. 3) The plaint was sought to be amended in order to add the prayer to the effect that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and CR No.4470 of 2009 - 2 - 2 in favour of defendant No.3, is null and void. The averments in relation thereto are stated to have been already made in the plaint. The amendment application has, however, been dismissed by the trial Court, giving rise to this revision petition. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. It is apparent from the prayer clause of the unamended plaint that the petitioner-plaintiffs have already sought a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4th September, 1998 against “all the defendants” which includes defendant No.3 also. 5) In my considered view and having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the Civil suit, there is no legal necessity for the petitioner to seek the proposed amendment. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. 6) Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 13.10.2009 shonkar