C.R. No.3789 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3789 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 16.11.2011 Kulwant Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gurjant Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Ms.Monika Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.: (Oral) The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.05.2011 passed by the trial court whereby an application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case may be noticed. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession of the disputed land and for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.09.2002 which was executed by the defendant-respondent in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner C.R. No.3789 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: 4. The defendant-respondent had filed the written statement on 10.08.2006 and the issues were framed on 05.03.2007. 5. The plaintiff-petitioner on an earlier occasion on detecting that the year in the Jamabandi has been wrongly mentioned as 2001-02 whereas it should have been 1996-97, had filed an application for removal of typographical mistake, which was dismissed by the trial court on 15.10.2010. Thereafter, the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint was moved. The plaintiff-petitioner vide the amendment application had sought to implead the subsequent vendee, i.e. Kuldeep Singh son of Surjan Singh son of Sardara Singh resident of Village Alamgir, Tehsil & District Ludhiana, who had purchased the property vide sale deed dated 03.05.2009. The petitioner had also included the earlier amendment which had been declined vide order dated 15.10.2010. The said prayer was opposed by the defendant- respondent. The trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 04.05.2011 impugned herein. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that it was essential to implead the subsequent vendee as defendant No.2 in a suit for specific performance by incorporating the factum of subsequent sale in the pleadings. According to the learned counsel, this was for the just decision and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It was urged that the trial court had erred in declining the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. 7. Controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent submitted that the plaintiff had C.R. No.3789 of 2011 (O & M) ::3:: availed numerous opportunities and failed to lead any evidence. The application on an earlier occasion had been filed for correction of the Jamabandi, which was also declined and the said order had become final. According to the learned counsel, the present application is a device not only to delay the proceedings but to circumvent the last opportunity which had been granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for leading evidence as plaintiff-petitioner had failed to lead evidence. Not even a single witness was examined for the last five years as the suit was filed on 15.04.2005 and the application was filed on 25.10.2010 immediately, after the earlier application for removal of typographical mistake in respect of the year of Jamabandi had been declined. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. The conduct of the plaintiff- petitioner shows that in spite of suit having been filed in the year, 2005 no witness had been examined by him. Further, an application for correcting the typographical mistake in respect of the year of Jamabandi had also been dismissed and the present second application is without justifying the cause for amendment. The application was not found to be bona fide. Moreover, rule of lis pendens also applies. The trial court while declining the application had observed as under: “Heard on the application under order 6 rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint and under section 19 of Specific Performance Act to implead subsequent vendee as defendant No.2. After C.R. No.3789 of 2011 (O & M) ::4:: hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and going through the file, this court finds that present case pertains to going through the file, this court finds that present case pertains to 15.04.2005 and issues in this case were framed on 21.05.2007. Since from the date of framing of issues, plaintiff has failed to examine even a single witness. Application filed by plaintiff to remove the typographical mistake in respect of the year of Jamabandi has already been dismissed and plaintiff has come with the second application. The trial in this case has already been commenced and plaintiff failed to conclude its evidence and plaintiff is filing one application after another. Accordingly, I find no merits in the present application and same stands dismissed”. 9. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 16, 2011 sukhpreet