V.K. Shali, J.

IA No. 3863/2009

1. This order shall dispose of IA bearing No. 3863/2009 under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground of concealment of material facts which tantamounts to playing fraud upon the Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit for specific performance on the basis of the alleged receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 16.06.1993, 11.12.1993 and 11.01.1995. The case set up in the plaint was that by virtue of the aforesaid receipts cum agreement to sell, the defendants had agreed to sell their agricultural land in question to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 29,25,000/- which was including the cost of standing crop and improvement carried out on the farm. The plaintiff had alleged that he had performed his part of the contract by paying the entire sale consideration and he had also received the possession. It was alleged that the defendants were not perfecting the title of the plaintiff, and accordingly, he was constrained to file the present suit for specific performance.

3. On 27.01.1997, the Court had issued summons in the suit to the defendants/applicants and directed them to maintain the status quo with regard to the possession of the suit property.

4. The defendants filed their written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff. It was alleged by the defendants that receipt-cum-agreement to sell purported to be executed between the defendants and the plaintiff was in pursuance to the receipt cum agreement to sell dated 15.03.1993 for sale of the agricultural land in question. Under this agreement, the transaction was agreed @ Rs. 35,00,000/- per acre and thus the total sale consideration was Rs. 1,89,94,791/- out of which he had received only Rs. 31.25 lacs. It was alleged that the original receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 15.03.1993 was in possession of the plaintiff and the second carbon copy having the signatures of both the parties was in possession of the defendants. The defendants/applicants specifically pleaded that the plaintiff has done interpolations in the receipt to show his possession. The learned counsel for the defendants has also alleged that the receipt-cum-agreement dated 16.06.1993 and 11.12.1993 relied upon by the plaintiff were tampered with which are alleged to have been executed pursuant to the agreement dated 15.03.1993. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff was able to pay only a sum of Rs. 31.25 lakhs against a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,89,94,791/- and that the plaintiff was neither ready nor willing to perform his part of the contract nor he had financial capacity to do so and consequently the agreement dated 15.03.1993 was cancelled vide a registered letter dated 04.01.1994. It was also alleged that the receipt dated 11.01.1995 for Rs. 17,00,000/- was issued specifically by the defendant No. 4 on the fresh offer of the plaintiff to purchase the subject land at a revised rate of Rs. 1 crore per acre as against Rs. 35,00,000/- per acre. It is alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff never contacted the defendants and consequently the said offer of Rs. 1 crore per acre was also rejected and the same was communicated to the defendants through registered letter dated 09.02.1995. Later on, the plaintiff chose to file the present suit.

5. On 03.04.2000, that is after the expiry of almost three years from the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff in order to overcome the facts, as alleged by the defendants, instead of filing their replication filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC bearing IA No. 3002/2000 seeking extensive amendment in the suit.

6. In the amendment application, the plaintiff admitted that transactional value of the entire deal was approximately Rs. 1,90,00,000/- for which the land was sold to the plaintiff. It was stated that a mistake regarding the quantum of actual payment has been made in the plaint. It is stated that it was agreed