U.B. Saha, J.

1. This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the original suit No. T.S. 20 of 2010, calling in question the order, dated 15-11-2011, (Annexure P-6 to the revision petition) passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Udaipur, South Tripura in Civil Misc. No. 50 of 2011 arising out of T.S. No. 20 of 2010 whereby and where under the application under Order VI, Rule 17 and Sections 151 to 153, C.P.C. for amending the plaint as well as correcting the decree passed in the aforesaid suit in favour of the plaintiff was rejected. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the question of law involved, the instant writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage.

2. The Title Suit No. 20 of 2010 was instituted by the plaintiff, the petitioner herein. (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) against the defendant, the respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as defendant) for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint and ultimately, an ex parte decree was passed against the defendant, as he did not contest the case either by way of filing the written statement or examining him.

3. In the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that the defendant while he was in urgent need of money in the first part of October, 2009, laid a proposal to the plaintiff for selling off the suit land at a market price of Rs. 2,75,000/- (Rupees Two lac seventy five thousand only) and the plaintiff having agreed to the said proposal, paid Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash to the defendant as part payment of the said consideration money of Rs. 2,75,000/- in order to enable the defendant to mitigate his urgent financial constraints.

4. It has also been asserted in the plaint that on 12-10-2009, the defendant handed over the physical possession of the suit land, (i.e. the land proposed to be sold out), to the plaintiff with a liberty to the plaintiff to possess the same by his choice. It was assured by the defendant that he and/or his successors, in no way would disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

5. The defendant also agreed to that the plaintiff would pay the balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- within one month and on receipt of the said amount, the defendant would execute a registered sale deed for the suit land in favour of the plaintiff.

6. However, as a testament of the oral agreement between the parties, the plaintiff as well as the defendant has given effect of the said facts in writing in presence of five witnesses who subscribed their names at every pages of the said Deed. Later, in pursuance of the same, when the plaintiff approached the defendant with the balance amount of Rs. 25.000/- to be paid to him for getting a registered sale deed for the suit land in his favour, the defendant refused to execute the same in terms of the earlier agreement demanding an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to him, beyond the settled amount.

7. Dissatisfied with the breach of terms of agreement by the defendant, the plaintiff filed the above referred suit in which an ex parte decree was passed whereby the trial Court vide judgment, dated 26-6-2010, and decree, dated 30-6-2010, directed the defendant that on receipt of the rest amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff, the defendant would execute a registered sale deed in the name of the plaintiff for the suit land described in the plaint within two months from 26-6-2010. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the learned trial Court also directed the plaintiff to hand over the balance of consideration money of Rs. 25,000/- of the suit land to the defendant in presence of the District Registrar. South Tripura, Udaipur and restrained the defen