C.R. No.4306 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.4306 of 2007 Date of Decision: 25.1.2008 Narinder Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Rajinder Singh ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Ms.Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate for Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner,. Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for the respondent. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision is, to an order dated 5.6.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, dismissing an application, filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the impugned order, the petitioner prayed for amendment of the plaint, so as to enable him to incorporate a plea that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had sold the suit property to Indira Rani W/o Mohan Lal and Kamal Kishore S/o Mohan Lal, vide registered sale deed dated 21.7.2004 and they had appointed one Ajay Puri S/o Raj Kumar Puri, as their attorney, by registered Power of Attorney dated 1.9.2006. The petitioner also prayed that the aforementioned persons be impleaded as defendants. The learned trial Court,however, declined to C.R. No.4306 of 2007 2 entertain both the prayers. It is submitted that the petitioner confines his claim, as recorded in the order of this Court dated 24.8.2007, to a prayer to amend the plaint to reflect the fact of sale of the suit property. Counsel for the respondent, however, asserts that the aforementioned facts are irrelevant as no relief is prayed, against the alleged vendees or the attorney appointed by them. The amendment, therefore, be disallowed and the impugned order be upheld. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleading Indira Rani W/o Mohan Lal and Kamal Kishore S/o Mohan Lal as they had allegedly purchased the suit property from the defendant, as also for a consequential amendment of the plaint. The learned trial Court, however, dismissed the application . While issuing notice of motion, the petitioner confined his prayer to the plea of amendment of plaint only. The petitioner, seeks to incorporate the factum of sale pendente-lite, and the appointment of an attorney by the vendees. Though, no relief is claimed, with respect to the alleged sale or against the alleged attorney, these facts may be relevant, as ownership, of the suit property, has changed hands during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 24.8.2007 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be allowed to amend the plaint, to the extent that the defendant has sold the suit property to Indira Rani W/o MohanLal and Kamal Kishore son of Mohan Lal, vide registered sale deed dated 21.7.2004 and they have appointed Ajay Puri, as their attorney. C.R. No.4306 of 2007 3 With the aforementioned modifications in the impugned order, the present revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 25.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE