A.N. JINDAL, J - This petition assails the order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar accepting the application for amendment of the plaint.

2. The petitioner-defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 in this petition) are brothers. Surjit Rai plaintiff-respondent No.1 is the attorney of the defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 in this petition), vide registered power of attorney dated 25.4.2003. On 3.4.2004, the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.4.2003. According to him, the defendants had agreed to sell the land measuring 50 marlas in village Sansarpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar as also SCF No.56, Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali for a total sale consideration of `35 lacs, out of which `10 lacs had been paid as an earnest money. There was some dispute between the defendants No.1 and 2 with regard to the property bearing No. SCF No.56, Phase 3B-II, SAS Nagar Mohali and that the same had been resolved vide an agreement dated 27.4.2003. As such, the agreement dated 27.4.2003 was also annexed with the agreement to sell dated 28.4.2003 between the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2. Earlier, the plaintiff had pleaded in the suit that both the agreements were executed at Jalandhar and were signed by the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 and the witnesses were taken by the defendant No.2 for getting them signed by defendant No.1 who lives in Germany by sending them to Germany. The defendant No.1 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. However, the defendant No.2 contested the suit, denied the execution of the agreements and took the precise stand in the written statement that the agreement dated 27.4.2003 and 28.4.2003 were fabricated and forged documents. The trial court had framed the issues and adjourned the case for evidence. In support of his pleas, the plaintiff filed affidavits of six witnesses. However, on 15.6.2009, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint with request to delete the previous para No.4 of the plaint and introduce a new para No.4 in its place. I need to reproduce both the paras.

3. Para No.4 of the original suit reads as under:-

“4. That after purchase of the stamp papers, both the agreements were to be written and typed and it was agreed that the same will be got written and typed and executed by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 at Jalandhar and the same would be sent to the defendant No.1 for his signatures in Germany because he had to leave for Germany positively on 28.4.2003 in the morning. Accordingly, both these agreements were executed i.e. one between the defendant No.1 and 2 at Jalandhar on 27.4.2003 and the other agreement between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 was executed on 28.4.2003. Both these documents were signed by the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 in the presence of witnesses who also signed the same and they were taken by defendant No.2 for getting it signed from defendant No.1 to send the same to defendant No.1 for signatures at Germany. Accordingly, both these agreements were taken by defendant No.2 after having been executed at Jalandhar and signed by the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 and the witnesses after the same were signed by defendant No.1, they were turned to the plaintiff by defendant No.2.”

The proposed amended para No.4 of the plaint reads as under :

“That after purchase of the stamp papers, both the agreements were to be written and typed and it was agreed that the same would be got typed and executed by the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 at Jalandhar. However, the agreement dated 27.4.2003, copy of which has already been produced on record, was duly executed between the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 at Jalandhar but because the defendant No.1 was to go to Germany and his flight was for the same night, so before execution of the agreement dated 28.4.2003, the def