IMPORTANT POINT
When once trial is commenced, party seeking amendment, has to satisfy Court that in spite of due diligence, he could not make amendment application before commencement of trial.

R. Kantha Rao, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8.12.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad district, in I.A.No.360 of 2010 in OS.No.67 of 2008.

2. The defendant in the suit is the petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit against the Revision Petitioner-defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.1.2008 in respect of an open plot measuring 24,0 square yards. Under the agreement of sale, the revision petitioner agreed to purchase the property for an amount of Rs.3,20,000 and paid an amount of Rs.48,000 as advance and agreed to pay the remaining amount within a period of two months. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent subsequently addressed a letter expressing his inability to purchase the plaint schedule plot and permitting him to sell away the open plot to third party and pay the earnest money back to him. It is said that after receiving the letter; the revision petitioner sold part of the suit plot bearing Nos.43 and 44 of an extent of 240 square yards to one Md. Sarwar resident of Nizamabad and executed a registered sale deed in his favour. Subsequent to the said sale the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract in terms of the agreement of sale, dated 15.1.2008.

3. The version of the respondent is that only after filing of the written statement on 22.1.2009 by the revision petitioner mentioning therein that he sold the property to Md. Sarwar, he came to know about the said sale and therefore he could not plead the same in the plaint. He further submits that after filing the written statement he filed memo into the court to furnish the details of the said sale so as to enable him to implead subsequent purchaser as defendant in the suit. But the respondent says that no such particulars were furnished by the revision petitioner and he came to know about the particulars when the revision petitioner filed petition Under Order21, Rule47 of CPC before the Additional District Judge (VII Fast Track Court) Bodhan in CMA.No.26 of 2009 for receiving the document i.e., the Xerox copy of the sale deed No.4566/08, dated 23.6.2008 as additional evidence. After knowing the particulars from the additional evidence petition filed by the revision petitioner, the respondent plaintiff filed I.A.No.360 of 2010 seeking amendment of the plaint and impleadment of Md. Sarwar, the subsequent purchaser as defendant in the said suit, the said petition was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

4. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that since the respondent addressed a letter stating that he is not willing to purchase the property and perform his part of contract under the agreement of sale, he sold the property to Md. Sarwar and the respondent therefore cannot maintain a petition either to amend the plaint or to implead Md. Sarwar, as the second defendant. He would further submit that in the suit, the written statement was filed, issues were settled and the trial was already commenced during the course of which the respondent-plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit and at the belated stage the amendment shall not be allowed as per law. His last contention is that the impleadment of Md. Sarwar as second defendant amending the plaint and adding the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed are two distinct relief’s and the said relief’s cannot be sought in one petition and the respondents ought to have filed two separate petitions and therefore the petition filed by the revision petitioner praying for two relief’s is not maintainable.

5. Heard Sri M. Subba Reddy, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner relied upon a decision in Supriya Cold S