Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2009 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.1.2010 Smt. Krishna Devi ....Petitioner Versus Suraj Parkash and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Surya Kant Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vazir Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 4. S. D. ANAND, J. This petition at the hands of the plaintiff-petitioner is directed against the order dated 23.5.2009 vide which a plea under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for the amendment of plea was negatived. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 2.11.2000 vide which the defendants-respondents No. 1 to 3 had agreed to sell the property in suit to him. It transpired later on that the vendors- respondents had, before entering into impugned agreement, already hypothecated that property with a bank which (bank) ultimately put that property to auction. It is common ground that son of the plaintiff- Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2009 -2- *** petitioner was the highest bidder and he purchased that property at the auction which (auction) stands confirmed and bank has already executed a sale deed on the basis thereof in favour of son of the plaintiff-petitioner. The plea under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed to obtain the leave of the Court to raise the following pleas:- “13(a) “That the defendants No.1 to 3 before executing the agreement to sell dt. 2.11.2000 had already borrowed certain amount of loan from Punjab National Bank (defendant No.4) and this material fact was not disclosed by the said defendants, though they were bound to disclose but they not disclosing they kept the present plaintiff in dark and succeeded in getting a substantial amount of sale consideration from the plaintiff. The present plaintiff about the encumbrances on suit property came to know on 09.01.2003 when the defendant no.4 (Pb. National Bank) pasted a 60 days notice making demand for the payment of Rs.1573564/-. Put the defendants No.1 to 3 in spite of demand made by the Punjab National bank did not head to it as they had already received a substantial amount from the plaintiff. Ultimately, the defendant no.4 (Pb. National Bank) during Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2009 -3- *** pendency of present suit on 21.09.2004 auctioned the suit property and son of present plaintiff (Rajesh Kumar) purchased it in public auction. The sale by way of auction has already been confirmed and registered instrument (sale deed dt. 9.12.2004) has already been executed by defendant no.4 in favour of the auction purchaser (defendant no.5).” 13(b) “That if the objection petition filed by defendant No.1 to 3 against the sale/auction is rejected in that eventuality in view of the above stated subsequent events (transfer of title by way of sale auction) the plaintiff will be entitled to seek the decree of specific performance against the auction purchaser as he purchased it during pendency of the present suit and applying it during pendency of the present suit and applying the rule of Section 52 of T.P. Act, the subsequent auction purchaser Section 52 of T.P. Act, the subsequent auction purchaser is bound to face the consequence of present suit for specific performance.” 13(c) “That in case the objection petition against Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2009 -4- *** sale by way of auction is accepted then in that eventuality, also, the defendant No.1 to 3 will be bound to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by implementing the decree of specific performance passed against them.” It is apparent from the material obtaining on the file that the impugned agreement in favour defendants-respondents No.1 to 3 is dated 2.11.2000. The property was auctioned on 21.9.2004. The inescapable conclusion, thus, is that the facts proposed to be introduced by way of amendment came to the notice of plaintiff- petitioner on 21.9.2004. The proposed amendment application came to be filed only on 26.8.2008. By that time, the case had already been adjourned for recording of rebuttal evidence and arguments. Though there cannot be any dispute with the proposition that delay, perse, would not justify the declining of an otherwise allowable plea, it is equally clear that this application had been filed after unexplained and inordinate delay. The reception of an amendment plea after the trial has commenced is not a very acceptable proposition in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-petitioner cannot be said to have acted bonafide in making a presentation of the amendment plea which suffers from the vice of being belated and there also is no explanation forthcoming to explain why that delay came about. Civil Revision No. 4895 of 2009 -5- *** In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to dismissed accordingly. January 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE