CR No. 7818 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7818 of 2010 Date of decision:- 1.12.2010 Vipin Sethi ......petitioner vs. Diladar Singh ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. G. C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) CM No. 30849-CII of 2010 Application is allowed. Filing of certified copies of Annexures P-1 and P-2 is dispensed with. CR No. 7818 of 2010 Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court on 20.5.2010 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was declined. Plaintiff filed a suit for for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 8.10.2007. It is case of the petitioner that out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 2,40,000/-, Rs. 2,30,000/- was paid to the defendant and that the possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner also sought decree for permanent injunction. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has been dispossessed. Consequently, the plaintiff wishes to amend CR No. 7818 of 2010 -2- the plaint so as to incorporate subsequent development in respect of dispossession of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has declined the amendment for the reason that the plaintiff wishes to fill the lacuna by seeking amendment in the plaint. Learned trial Court has recorded that the defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.7.2008. Since, the defendant has proceeded ex-parte before the trial Court he is not required to be served in terms of the Order 41 Rule 14 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff is seeking the specific performance of an agreement to sell. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit property but it is alleged that he has since been dispossessed. The plaintiff is entitled to possession in the suit for specific performance. In fact, the amendment sought is to enable the Court to pass a proper decree. There is no lacuna in the plaint which can be sought to have been filled up by the plaintiff. Learned trial Court has committed illegality while declining the amendment in a suit for specific performance to deny the relief of possession of the plaintiff. In view of the said fact, the present revision is allowed and the order passed by learned trial Court on 20.5.2010 is set aside and the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as sought for. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 1.12.2010 preeti