Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 24th January, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the plaintiff’s IA No. 3002/2000 under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’) seeking to amend the plaint in CS (OS) No. 166/1997.

2. The aforementioned suit was filed by the respondent plaintiff on 25th January 1997 against the appellants defendants for specific performance in relation to an agricultural land in Village Malikpur Kohi alias Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereafter the property). The case set up by the plaintiff was that the total sale consideration had been agreed at Rs.29,25,000/-. According to the plaintiff, he had paid Rs.6,00,000/-on 16th June, 1993, Rs. 5,00,000/-on 11th December, 1993 and Rs. 17 lakhs on 11th January, 1995. He claimed that on each of these occasions receipts-cum-agreements had been executed. Although Rs.28 lakhs had been paid to the defendants, no regular receipts were issued but a formal receipt for Rs.1,25,000/-was executed on 23rd May, 1993 by defendant No.3 (appellant No. 3 herein) on behalf of all the defendants. According to the plaintiff, despite the statutory permission being granted for the sale of the property, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed.

3. In para 20 of the plaint, which is relevant for the present purpose, the plaintiff described the different dates on which the causes of action arose. The said paragraph reads as under:-

“20. That the cause of action has arisen on the dates i.e. 16th June, 1993, 11th December, 1993 and 11th January, 1995 when the Receipts-cum-Agreement for the sale of agricultural land were executed. The cause of action further arose when the application to the A.D.M. was moved for getting the permission for the sale of agricultural land was moved on 13th January, 1995. The cause of action further arose when the permission was accorded by the A.D.M. on 12th May 1995 and thereafter the cause of action further arose on 26th December 1996 when the telegram was received by the plaintiff from the defendant No. 2. The cause at action further arose when the plaintiff got the sale deed ready and the same were to be executed and registered at the residence of the plaintiff the cause of action is continuing as the defendants gave not turned up even inspite of their telegram on 26th December 1996 and have started demanding huge premium amount from the plaintiff which the plaintiff have refused to pay as such the defendants have refused to execute the sale deed and are threatening that they will be transferring the property in favour of some body else as such the case of action is continuing.”

4. The defendants in their written statements admitted that they were the registered owners of the property. However, it was stated that a receipt-cum-agreement had been executed between the plaintiff and the defendants on 15th March, 1993 and the sale price was fixed at Rs.35,00,000/-per acre. The total consideration worked out to Rs.1,89,94,791/-. It had been agreed that Rs.85,00,000/-would be paid as earnest money. Rs.7,50,000/-was paid on 15th March, 1993. The receipt-cum-agreement of that date was in fact executed on 15th April, 1993. Although in the said agreement it was stated that a sum of Rs.85,00,000/-was being paid by the plaintiff, he informed the defendants that he was able to arrange only for Rs.11.5 lakhs. The agreement was then retyped and the same sum of Rs.11.5 Lakhs was shown as having been paid to four of the defendants by separate cheques. According to the defendants, the agreement provided that if the sale deed was not executed by 15th July, 1993, the amount received as an advance/earnest money stood forfeited. The defendants further admitted that the plaintiff paid Rs.1,25,000/-to the defendant No. 3 on 23rd May, 1993. Further a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-was paid on 16th June, 1993 to defendant No. 3. Therefore, upto 15th July 1993, the plaintiff had managed to pay only Rs.26.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document