Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral):- The present revision petition filed by the defendant-petitioner is directed against the order dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana whereby, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleadment of Gurpreet Singh and Surinder Kaur, son and wife of the present petitioner, has been allowed. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is that after the evidence had been completed, the defendant had tendered two gift deeds dated 04.02.2010 and 03.03.2010 in favour of the above said persons and, therefore, the amendment was allowed in order to challenge the said gift deeds which were not found mentioned in the written statement filed by the present petitioner-defendant.

2. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that in the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 12.10.2001, the case of the respondent-plaintiff was that property bearing Plot No. 806 measuring 300 square yards situated at Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana had been agreed to be sold for consideration of Rs. 20,50,000/-. A sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as earnest money was paid and the date was fixed as 31.03.2002. There was some litigation in the name of Chatrath Hardware vs. Chanan Singh, which was pending and assurances were given for executing the sale deed. Eventually, the suit was filed on 03.08.2011.

3. In the defence taken by the petitioner-defendant as per the written statement dated 04.11.2011, there was no whisper of any gift deeds regarding the property in question. After evidence had been concluded and the Court had closed the defence evidence by order, the petitioner tendered two certified copies of the gift deeds in favour of his son and wife which were of February, 2010 and March, 2010. In such circumstances, the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed submitting that apart from adding the said persons as defendants no. 2 and 3, the prayer for declaration that the gift deeds were void and sham be also incorporated in the prayer clause as it would be necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The plea was that the amendment was necessary for determining the real question of controversy between the parties. The said application was opposed on the ground that it was not maintainable and the suit was time barred and the evidence having been completed and at the fag end of the trial and the case being fixed for final arguments, the plaintiff was estopped from seeking the alleged amendment. The Trial Court noticed the facts summarized above regarding the non mentioning of the gift deeds in the written statement and came to the conclusion that the said documents had been withheld by the defendant. The amendment sought was for proper adjudication of the rights of the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation allowed the applications vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2014 which is now the subject matter of challenge.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that under Section 15(a) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963, the specific performance of the contract may be obtained by any party thereto and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bharat Karsondas Thakkar vs. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. and others, [2008(5) Law Herald (SC) 3067] : 2008 AIR (SC) 2134. It is accordingly submitted that persons who are not party to the contract in the suit for specific performance have been impleaded and, therefore, the order of the Trial Court was not justified. It is submitted that once the evidence has been concluded under the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17, CPC, the amendment was not to be allowed since trial has commenced.

5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the well justified and reasoned order passed by the Trial C