C.R. 1957 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 1957 of 2011 Date of decision: April 20th , 2011 Mangal Singh Petitioner vs. Jasbir Kaur and others Respondent Present: Mr. KS Cheema, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Mangal Singh, representing his father Satnam Singh ( defendant) has preferred this revision petition against order dated 2.2.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Hoshiarpur allowing the application of the plaintiff- respondents for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the adjudication of the present revision petition are that Jasbir Kaur and Balvir Singh plaintiff- respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 7.6.2005 executed by deceased Kharak Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendants in favour of plaintiff- respondents regarding 98 kanal of land, mentioned in the heading of the plaint on payment of balance of sale consideration of Rs.40,22,500/- after adjusting the sale consideration of Rs.10.00 lacs. The plaintiff- respondents also sought a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property. The plaintiff- respondents sought an amendment of the plaint by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.R. 1957 of 2011 -2- CPC to delete from head note as well as from the prayer clause of the plaint the words “ fraudulently and forcibly” besides incorporating a few words like “wrong, illegal, void nonest and inoperative”. The plaintiffs sought to incorporate the plea that the plaintiff- respondents had always been ready and willing to perform the contract on their part and are still ready and willing to perform the same by getting executing sale deed from defendants with balance amount of sale consideration and other expenses of stamp, scribe and registration charges. Defendant No.1 got sale deed dated 29.7.2005 prepared in his favour from deceased Kharak Singh fraudulently and forcibly. The trial court while allowing the amendment has observed that the amendment is proper for effective adjudication of the case and the same is bona fide. The same will not cause any prejudice to the opposite party in case the respondent is compensated in terms of money. The trial court has further observed that the proposed amendment will be beneficial for the contesting defendant as he will not have to bring on record any evidence to establish that he had not got the sale deed executed in his favour from his father fraudulently and forcibly. Mr. K.S.Cheema, Advocate has contended that by permitting the amendment a valuable admission by the plaintiff- respondent has been permitted to be withdrawn and the amendment could not have been allowed without any explanation by the plaintiff for withdrawal of his admission. I have considered the contention of Mr. Cheema and I am of the opinion that the order of the trial court dated 2.2.2011 permitting the amendment does not, in any manner, permit the withdrawal of any admission which would cause any prejudice to the defendant- petitioner. So far as the permission to incorporate the plea of willingness to execute the sale deed is concerned, the same is a statutory requirement to be C.R. 1957 of 2011 -3- pleaded as well as to be established by leading evidence. No serious prejudice seems to have been caused to the defendant- petitioner by permitting the amendment. The amendment has been allowed at the initial stage of the case. No ground is made for interference in the discretion already exercised by the trial court in consonance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Dismissed. April 20 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE