C.R.No.2650 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2650 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:11.05.2009. Amarjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Avtar Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand. Present: Mr. S.S.Swaich, Advocate, for Mr. Harpreet Singh Gharuan, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.Anand, J. (ORAL) It was a pure and simple suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff – respondent against the defendant – petitioner. The relief, applied for in the alternative, was for the recovery of the indicated amount and also for permanent injunction. The plaintiff – respondent filed a plea under order 6 Rule 17 CPC during the trial, seeking the leave thereby of the Court, to introduce the following para: - “10A – That after the filing of the suit the plaintiff obtained the copy of the jamabandi from the halqa patwari on 10.03.2008 and came to know that after the agreement to sell the defendant mortgaged the property with the bank to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-, total amount of Rs.23,00,000/-. The mortgage amount is payable to the authority/bank with whom the land was mortgaged by the defendant fraudulently. The defendant is not entitled to this amount of Rs.23,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant should clear the loan amount of the bank or the mortgage amount be kept as “AMANAT” and be adjusted in the amount payable to the defendant at the time of registration of the sale C.R.No.2650 of 2009 (O&M) 2 deed after deducting the amount of Rs.23,00,000/-.” The learned Trial Court allowed the plea by observing that the case is at the initial stage, that the proposed amendment will not change either the nature of the suit or the cause of action and that it would, on the other hand, be essential for proper adjudication of the case. It further observed that no prejudice (by the allowance of the amendment plea) shall be caused to the defendant – petitioner and that could be compensated with the costs therefor. Learned counsel for the defendant – petitioner is not in a position to challenge the factual correctness of the averments made in the course of the impugned order. It is, thus, apparent that the trial is at the initial stage. The proposed amendment would not, in any manner, either change the nature of the suit or the cause of action. The petition is denuded of merit and ordered to be dismissed. May 11, 2009. (S.D.Anand) vinod Judge