Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Ramesh Kumar Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - Civil Revision No.6573 and 6890 of 2018, arising from the identical orders passed by the trial Court in two connected suits shall sand disposed of.
2. The plaintiff has filed two suits for grant of decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff and defendant in both the suits are common. Immediately after filing of the suits, two applications filed for permission to amend the suit, particularly when no notice of the suits had been served on the defendant, have been dismissed by the trial Court. The amendment sought to be incorporated reads as under:-
4(a) ln fact at the time of entering into agreement of sale dated 16.04.13 the defendant did not have any copy of Jamabandi for describing the description of the khasra nos. of the property to be sold & the description was got described by him in the agreement from a slip of paper.
"4(b) Lateron on going through the revenue record such as Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 before 16.09.13 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is not shown in possession of any specific part out of 10 Kanals 16 Marlas or within the specific boundaries mentioned in the sai
Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff is entitled to seek alternative/additional relief.
The law of amendment is liberal, and the Court has the discretion to allow an amendment if it serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation.
The Court emphasized the importance of allowing amendments to pleadings to ensure a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case and cited relevant case law to support its decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
