Civil Revision No. 249 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 249 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.01.2009 Smt. Basanti ...Petiitioner Versus Tek Ram ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff is in revision against the dismissal of his application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. vide which he applied for conversion of the present suit for permanent injunction into a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 19.1.1996. The suit for permanent injunction had been filed on 19.7.1996. In terms of the agreement, the sale deed in pursuance of the impugned agreement was to be executed on 17.5.1999. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner argues that the plea for amendment of the plaint could not have been filed earlier inasmuchas it was only on 22.10.2002 that the provision with regard to obtaining of the Income Tax Clearance Certificate (hereinafter referred to “ITCC”) came to be abolished by the competent authority retrospectively with effect from 1.6.2001. The plea raised thereby is that the plea for amendment could just not have been filed prior to the abolition of that clause which required a proposed vendee to obtain an ITCC before effecting the sale of a property. Learned counsel, when called upon to indicate to the Court Civil Revision No. 249 of 2009 -2- clause by which the parties had agreed to the obtaining of the ITCC in the first instance, concedes that the relevant clause had been agreed to be deleted by the parties themselves at the time the impugned agreement dated 19.1.1996 was executed. A civil cause would be adjudicated upon on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Ofcourse, the Court shall have to ensure that the decretal of the cause is not violative of law of the land. Nonetheless, essential foundational premise for a civil adjudication is the pleadings of the parties. In the present case, the parties had concededly deleted the relevant clause which would have indicated that the obtaining of the ITCC by the vendor could not be a conditional precedent for the execution of the impugned agreement. Even otherwise, if a vendor does not obtained the ITCC, it would be for the registering authority to take whatever view it wants in the context. Insofar as the parties to the agreement are concerned, they are bound by the clause to which they had contractually consented. It would not be open to a party to file a plea for amendment if it (the plea) is apparently barred by time. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The impugned order is upheld. It is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court exercised its judicial discretion in a legally acceptable and appropriate manner. January 27, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge