Civil Revision No. 4642 & 4643 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 4642 of 2011 Shyam Lal ...Petitioner Versus Bimla Devi and others ...Respondents 2. Civil Revision No. 4643 of 2011 Shyam Lal ...Petitioner Versus Bimla Devi and others ...Respondents Date of decision:- 21.02.2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos 1 to 6. RITU BAHRI J. The revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are for setting aside order dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for amendment of plaint has been dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of Civil Revision No. 4642 & 4643 of 2011 -2- specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 16.10.2000 executed by Jai Bhagwan son of Sh. Fakir Chand, husband of defendant No. 1-respondent, father of defendant Nos. 2 to 6-respondents in respect of the suit land for a total sale consideration of ` 60,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that the said Jai Bhagwan had received ` 48,000/- as advance amount on different dates and promised to get the sale deed executed registered on 28.08.2001 but he failed to do so. The plaintiff remained always willing and ready to perform his part of contract. However, the said Jai Bhagwan died on 23.03.2003 and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 being his LR's succeeded to the suit land. Notice was issued to these defendants by the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed in terms of agreement to sell dated 16.10.2000. On notice, the defendants filed their written statement and denied the agreement to sell rather termed it as a fraudulent document. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. One of the grounds was non-compliance of provisions of order 32 Rule 3 of the Code, governing the appointment of a guardian for minor defendants. There were five minors i.e defendant Nos. 2 to 6 who were impleaded under the guardianship of their mother Bimla Devi- defendant No. 1. No formal order for appointment of guardian was passed and trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the minor defendants. Defendants agreed to the aforesaid preposition of law and admitted that compliance of provisions of order 32 Rule3 of the Code has not been made. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded back to the trial Court to commence the trial de novo and it was directed that plaintiffs shall move Civil Revision No. 4642 & 4643 of 2011 -3- the required application under Order 32 Rule 3 of the Code, if so advised. On remand, the plaintiff has moved the present application for amendment of the plaint. On notice by the trial Court, the defendants-respondents had opposed the present application on the ground that during the pendency of suit before the Appellate Court identical relief for amendment of plaint has been declined, therefore, the second application is not maintainable. In the head note of the plaint, the plaintiff had restricted his right to 12 marlas out of khasra No. 14//23. This area was in the ownership of Jai Bhagwan who had executed the agreement to sell in his individual capacity. After passing of the decree by this Court, execution was filed and the sale deed was executed and mutation was sanctioned thereafter. The plaintiff restricted his claim qua khasra No.14//23 after a lapse of such a long period, therefore plaintiff cannot extend his claim qua other land. The trial Court had decreed the suit on 19.09.2008 (Annexure P-7). It seems that application for amendment has been moved just to delay the proceedings of the case. Mr. R.S. Mamli, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in a case of ' Puran Ram vs. Baguram and another, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 001' to contend that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, it is permissible to amend a part of the description of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the agreement. It has further been held that amendment if allowed will not change the nature of suit from a suit of specific performance to suit for declaration. Civil Revision No. 4642 & 4643 of 2011 -4- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his claim only qua Khasra No. 14/23. However, the petitioner/plaintiff did not mention the following khasra Numbers in the heading of the plaint as well as in the prayer clause, which are khewat No. 119, Khatauni No. 165, Khasra no. 29/3/2/1, 3//2/2, 3//1, 14//24 and 29//3/3. Therefore, the amendment has been rightly declined on the ground that this will amount to de novo trial. Earlier also the petitioner/plaintiff had moved an application in the Ist Appellate Court, which was dismissed. No ground is made out to interfere in the order dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, at this stage Accordingly, these revision petitions are dismissed. ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE