The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings should be liberally granted to serve justice, particularly when the cause of action arises from recent developments, like the dismissal of a related civil appeal.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

I.A. 2682/2024 (Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC whereby the plaintiff seeks to bring on record facts that have taken place during the pendency of the captioned suit and seeks further relief of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 01.05.2003 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1.

2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present application are as follow:-

a. The grandfather of the defendant no.1, i.e. Mr Baij Nath Mehra entered into Lease Agreement dated 10.12.1951 with the President of India in respect of property bearing no.3, Block No.171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi-110003 measuring 0.179 acres (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). Upon passing of Mr Baij Nath Mehra, the suit property devolved upon Mr Anu Mehra, i.e. defendant no.1 herein vide registered Will dated 23.08.1993.

b. The defendant no.1, desirous of selling the entire suit property approached the plaintiff herein following which negotiations took place between the parties which concluded in the Agreement to Sell dated 01.05.2003. As per the said Agreement to Sell, the total sale consideration agreed upon by the parties was Rs.3,05,00,000/-. In furtherance of the said agreement, the plaintiff herein made payments to the tune of Rs.2,15,00,000/- to the defendant vide various cheques in the year 2003 and the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff.

c. Apart from the said Agreement to Sell, the defendant no.1 also executed a General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Possession Letter, Affidavit, Indemnity Bond and Will dated 01.05.2003 in favour of the plaintiff which were duly stamped and registered. Additionally, the plaintiff had also advanced a sum of Rs.21,96,000/- towards payment for non judicial stamp papers on 30.04.2003, as well as, Rs.12,60,000/- to the Land and Development Office (hereinafter referred to as ‘L&DO’) as the conversion fee for converting the suit property from lease hold to free hold.

d. Under the Agreement to Sell, it was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.90,00,000/- would be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 upon fulfilment/completion of all the formalities as mentioned in Clauses 6 to 8 of the said agreement, which read as under:-

“6. That within reasonable time from the date hereof, the Vendor shall complete the following formalities :

i) Get the leasehold rights in respect of the said plot of land mutated in his own name in the records of L&DO, New Delhi, at the cost and expenses of the Vendee;

ii) Get the said property mutated in his own name in the records of M.C.D.

iii) Get the leasehold rights in respect of the said plot of land converted into freehold in his own name from the President of India, through L&DO, New Delhi, at the cost and expenses of the Vendee;

7. That after completing the aforesaid formalities, the Vendor will inform the Vendee by Registered post.

8. That within 30 (thirty) days from the receipt of the said intimation by the Vendee, the Vendor shall execute and get the sale deed of the said property registered in favour of the Vendee or her nominee/s, failing which the Vendee shall be entitled to get the sale deed registered though the court of law by SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, at the cost and expenses of the Vendor.”

e. However, the L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development vide letter dated 28.02.2002 addressed to the defendant no.1, had raised certain issues with regard to breaches in the suit property and thereby determined the lease and re-entered the suit property.

f. The defendant no.1 assailed the re-entry order dated 28.02.2002 along with certain other letters dated 03.01.2005 and 01.03.2005 in WP(C) No.6837/2005 before this Court. The said challenge by the defendant no.1 was allowed vide judgment dated 02.08.200