JUDGMENT :

Vikas Suri, J.

1. Prayer in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of plaint, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.52,92,000/-, i.e. Rs.36,00,000/- as principal amount paid as earnest money by the plaintiffs to defendant Nos.1 to 4 at the time of execution of agreement dated 25.02.2014 along with Rs.16,92,000/- as interest from 25.02.2014 to 24.01.2018; and for future interest. The relief of permanent injunction has also been sought in the said suit.

2.1 The petitioner-plaintiffs moved an application dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) seeking amendment of the plaint and, besides making additional averments, add the prayer in the alternative for decree of possession by way of specific performance and for a decree for mandatory injunction.

2.2 Upon notice of the application, the same was opposed by filing reply thereto. The trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings and the rival contentions raised by the parties, dismissed the application for amendment of plaint vide order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-5). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-plaintiff No.1 has challenged the same by way of the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the law with regard to amendment of pleadings is very liberal and the prayer for allowing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint ought to have been allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision in Puran Ram vs. Bhaguram and another, (2008) 4 SCC 102.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance perused the record.

5. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that an agreement to sell dated 25.02.2014 was executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs and on that basis, endorsement dated 19.08.2014 was also executed by the said defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs executed an agreement to sell dated 24.07.2014 in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 7. Another agreement-cum-endorsement dated 30.10.2014 was executed declaring the agreement dated 25.02.2014, endorsement dated 19.08.2014, agreement dated 24.07.2014 and agreement-cum-endorsement dated 30.10.2014 to be un-executable due to non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 4, and further due to breach of agreement, and the endorsement, as a result of non-levelling of the land, non-installation of the burjis after demarcation and excavating the earth from the land, which was subject matter of agreement to sell dated 25.02.2014, thereby causing the health of the land to diminish.

6. To appreciate the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be apposite to examine the original relief sought in the plaint and the amendment now being sought. The prayer made in the plaint reads as under:-

'It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs.52,92,000/- (Rupees fifty two lacs ninety two thousands only) i.e. Rs.36,00,000/- as principal amount paid as earnest money by the plaintiffs to the defendants no.1 to 4 on 25/02/2014 at the time of execution of the agreement dated 25/02/2014 along with Rs. 16,92,000/- as interest @ Rs.1% per month from 25/02/2014 to 24/01/2018 i.e. for 47 months along with future interest @ Rs.1% per month till the realization of the amount on the basis of agreement to sell dated 25/02/2014 which was executed by defendants no.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs and on the basis of endorsement dated 19/08/2014 which was also executed by defendants no.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiffs and on the basis of agreement to sell dated 24/07/2014 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendants no.5 to 7 as per the terms and conditions of agreement to sell dated 25/02/201