C.R. No. 382 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 382 of 2008 Date of Decision: 29.07.2009 1. Gurinder Singh s/o S. Sardool Singh; 2. Gurdip Kaur w/o S. Gurinder Singh; both r/o 4, Abadi Sarvarpura, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus 1. Prabhjot Singh s/o S. Kartar Singh; 2. Manjot Singh s/o S. Parbhot Singh; both r/o 233, Abadi East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. B.R. Mahajan , Advocate, for the revision-petitioners. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, exparte. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 03.10.2007, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which, it dismissed the C.R. No. 382 of 2008 2 application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of plaint. 2. An agreement to sell dated 03.08.2006, in respect of the property, in dispute, was executed, in favour of the plaintiffs/revision- petitioners, by the defendants/respondents. The date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 03.02.2007. Before the arrival of that date, the revision-petitioners, apprehended that the defendants/respondents, were going to alienate the property, in dispute, and remove the fixtures therefrom, as a result whereof, they filed a suit for permanent injunction, on 08.12.2006. However, during the pendency of the suit, cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, to file a suit for specific performance, on the basis of the aforesaid agreement to sell. Accordingly, an application for the amendment of plaint, was moved, for claiming the relief for possession, by way of specific performance of the agreement, and, in the alternative, for recovery of the amount with interest. That application was dismissed, vide the order impugned, on the ground, that since a fresh cause of action, had arisen to the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, they could file a separate suit for possession, by way of specific performance. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioners. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that, since cause of action, for filing a suit for possession, by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.08.2006, accrued to the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, during the pendency of the suit, for permanent injunction, the application for the amendment of plaint, deserved C.R. No. 382 of 2008 3 to be accepted, but the trial Court, was wrong, in holding that they (plaintiffs/revision-petitioners), could file a separate suit, as a new cause of action, had arisen, to them. She further submitted that the order of the Court below, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, supported the order dated 03.10.2007, rendered by the Court below. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Admittedly, a suit was filed by the plaintiffs/revision- petitioners, for permanent injunction, on 08.12.2006, as they apprehended that the respondents, were going to alienate the property, agreed to be sold to them, on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 03.08.2006. By that time, the date for execution and the registration of the sale deed, had not arrived. During the pendency of the suit, the date for execution and registration of the sale deed arrived. Accordingly, the application for the amendment of plaint, was filed. In my opinion, the plaintiffs/revision- petitioners, were entitled to seek the relief of possession, by way of specific performance, on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 03.08.2006. Had they not sought the amendment of plaint, by way of seeking the relief of possession, by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, it would have been said that a fresh suit filed by them for the same relief, was barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Had the cause of action, to file the suit for possession, by way of specific performance, accrued to the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, at the time of filing the suit for permanent injunction, the matter would have different. The reasons, recorded by the trial Court, for declining the amendment of C.R. No. 382 of 2008 4 plaint, do not stand judicial scrutiny. No prejudice, will be caused, to the opposite party, in case, the amendment of plaint, is allowed. The amendment, is also not going to change the nature of the suit, in any manner. The order impugned, thus, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisidiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is liable to be set aside. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The order impugned dated 03.10.2007, is set aside. The parties, are directed to appear, in the trial Court, on 24.08.2009, for further proceedings. 29.07.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE