IMPORTANT POINT
Unless specific permission of court is taken for amendments in pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, mere order for filing of additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC will not enable defendant to commit departure in his previous pleadings.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The present appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2021, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., vide which the appeal filed by the appellants (defendant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit seeking specific performance of the contract dated 31.10.2007 and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs. A declaration that a settlement deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2, was wrong, illegal, null and void was also prayed.

3. It was asserted that defendant no. 1 is the owner of the land bearing Khsara No. 1306. He agreed to sell the land bearing Khasra No.1306/1, measuring 160-12 Sq. meters, situated in Mauza Tarna, Tehsil Sadar District Mandi, (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land) to Panna Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. Panna Lal paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs), vide cheque dated 18.10.2007, drawn in favour of the Registrar General of High Court of H.P. He also paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand) on 31.10.2007. The rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the Sale Deed. The defendant delivered the possession of the suit land to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The suit land was mortgaged with Mandi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Mandi, H.P. Defendant No.1 filed a CMP No. 1303 of 2007 before this Court seeking permission to sell the land. This application was allowed subject to the condition that the entire sale proceeds would be deposited before the High Court. The defendant approached the plaintiffs in compliance with the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. The application was disposed of on 10.01.2008 and the permission to sell the land was not granted; however, a direction was issued to the Mandi Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. to auction the land. The defendant executed another agreement dated 24.04.2009 for the enlargement of the time for the execution of the Sale Deed. After the death of Panna Lal plaintiffs requested defendant no.1 to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the Sale Deed in their favour but he did not execute the Sale Deed. The plaintiffs made verification from the bank and found that the High Court had decided the matter on 16.11.2011, directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs), out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) were to be deposited within a month and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) was to be paid within four months. The plaintiffs offered to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) to the defendant and asked him to get the mortgage redeemed. The plaintiffs sent a legal notice asking him (defendant No.1) to execute the Sale Deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. The defendant sent a reply that the payment was to be made on or before 14.04.2012. The plaintiffs offered a cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) on 12.4.2012 but the defendant refused to accept the same. The plaintiffs even sent the cheque through Registered post. They came to know that the balance amount was paid by defendant no.1 and the mortgaged land was redeemed. Defendant No. 1 executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his son defendant No. 2 to defeat the right of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 failed to execute the Sale Deed despite repeated requests. Hence, the suit was filed seeking the relief mentioned above.

4. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability & locus standi, the plaintiffs being estopped to file the suit by their act and conduct