Amendment of Pleadings--On the ground of elaboration of defence in support of earlier plea taken in the written statement, the amendment can be allowed.

Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - Petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 06.12.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, vide which application for amendment of written statement was allowed in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

2. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the respondent/defendant. Plaintiff alleged that respondent had approached the plaintiff with an offer to sell land measuring 22 kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Maidwas, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. After negotiations, the sale consideration was settled to the tune of Rs.3,10,00,000/- per acre. Agreement to sell was executed on 31.07.2006. The total sale consideration was worked out to be Rs.8,52,50,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- was paid to the defendant vide cheque No.107888 dated 29.07.2006 drawn on ABN Amro Bank, Gurgaon. The said cheque was issued by the broker of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff. The target date for execution of sale deed was fixed on or before 15.08.2006. Since 15.08.2006 was holiday, therefore, on 17.08.2006, the sale deed was to be executed. Plaintiff alleged that on the date fixed, the defendant failed to turn up for execution of sale deed, whereas plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part of obligation. The defendant kept on putting the plaintiff on one pretext or the other so as to frustrate the contract. The plaintiff further pleaded that about one week prior to filing of the suit, plaintiff came to know that the defendant had sold the land in question to one Smt. Madhu Gupta vide registered sale deed dated 14.08.2006, which was subsequently followed by a deed of correction dated 25.09.2006 and mutation No.2618 was sanctioned.

3. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery with the aforesaid pleadings seeking to recover the amount of Rs.96,80,000/- being principal and the interest accumulated @ 12% per annum of Rs.80,00,000/- (earnest money) from 31.07.2006 to 30.04.2008. Pendente lite interest and future interest @ 12% per annum were also sought to be awarded from the date of filing of suit till final realization of the amount. The suit was prayed to be decreed with costs.

4. In para No.3(ii) of the plaint, following pleadings were made:-

“ii) That out of the total sale consideration a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rs. Eighty lacs only) was paid to the defendant vide cheque bearing No.107888 dated 29.07.2006 drawn on ABN Amro Bank, Gurgaon. The aforesaid cheque was issued by the broker of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff.”

5. In the written statement filed by the defendant, defendant denied the allegations made in para No.3(ii) of the plaint by way of following plea in the written statement:-

“3. That the para No.3 of the plaint as alleged is not admitted and the same is denied. It is denied that the said agreement was duly executed by the defendant and the plaintiff. The sub paras of the plaint 3(i) to 3 (viii) as alleged is not admitted and the same is denied.”

6. Plaintiff completed its evidence and the case is fixed for defendant’s evidence. The defendant sought to get the written statement amended on the ground that the defendant had entered into the sale agreement dated 29.07.2006 with one Jaipal son of Ved Singh resident of village Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, who had agreed to purchase the land measuring 22 kanals from the defendant @ Rs.2,58,00,000/- per acre and he paid a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- vide cheque No.107888 dated 29.07.2006 drawn on ABN Amro Bank, Gurgaon as earnest money. The original sale agreement was kept by purchaser Jaipal and a photocopy of the same was handed over to the authorized person of the defendant. The aforesaid agreement was frustrated on account of nonperformance on the part of purchaser and the amount was forfeited as per agreement. The photocopy of the said agreement was earlier not traceable and when the copy of the agreement was traced by the defendant, then the defendant soug