J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

I.A. 17394/2022 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff)

1. The present application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the plaint.

2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has filed the suit for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell/Contract dated 14.08.2011 and for Perpetual Injunction and Declaration.

3. It is submitted that one Satya Pal Singh, who was a witness to the Agreement to Sell, informed the plaintiff on 20.09.2019 that he has come to know on 15.09.2019 that another Sale Deed dated 10.07.2014 had been executed by defendant No.3, 4 and 5 before the Sub-Registrar, Hauz Khas, Delhi in favour of two individuals namely, Ravinder Singh and his wife Pushpa Lata, both residents of village Hauz Khas, New Delhi.

4. The plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the Sale Deed on 25.09.2019. On an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC moved by the plaintiff, Ravinder Singh and Pushpa Lata have been impleaded as defendant No.7 and 8 vide Order dated 22.12.2021.

5. The plaintiff has sought permission to insert paragraph 14A to describe the facts on how he came to know about execution of Sale Deed dated 10.07.2014 in favour of defendant No.7 and 8. He also wants to add that defendant No.3, 4 and 5 have sold the property twice by executing the Sale Deed dated 10.07.2014 in favour of defendant No.7 and 8 and another Sale Deed dated 06.05.2015 in favour of defendant No.6. It is also sought to be added that defendant No.1 had entered into false and manipulated Collaboration Agreement dated 13.12.2010 and defendant No.2 as opposed to the actual Agreement dated 09.12.2010. Not only did they make false statements, but he frequently changed his signatures with an intent to take undue advantage.

6. He further wants to incorporate facts about filing of Written Statement by defendant No.2 in another suit before learned ASJ, Saket and also the statement given by defendant No.2 before the Police during the investigations relating to a Complaint Case filed by the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff in paragraph 17 wants to incorporate about the criminal complaints filed by the plaintiff and that both the complaints are at the stage of the evidence of the complainant.

8. The plaintiff also intends to replace “defendant No.6” with “defendants” and the words “he is” with “they are” in paragraph 21.

9. Similarly, in paragraph 32 he intends to replace the para by asserting that the defendants in collusion with one another, may execute the Sale Deed or any other document to dispose of the suit property.

10. Consequential amendments are sought to be made in paragraph 33 describing cause of action and in prayer clause 2 to seek the relief in respect of the Sale Deeds executed in favour of defendant No.6 and defendant No.7 and 8 and also seek possession of the suit property.

11. Defendant No.2 in his reply to the application has submitted that an identical application vide I.A. No.14212/2019 with identical prayers was filed by the plaintiff, which was permitted to be withdrawn by the plaintiff because he realized that it was a abuse of the process of law.

12. The plaintiff has now filed an identical application with the same averments except minor changes. It is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court. It is further asserted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for Specific Performance and Injunction in respect of the Agreement to Sell dated 14.08.2011 and the proposed amendments are irrelevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy in the present suit.

13. It is further asserted that the relief of Specific Performance can be granted even in the absence of subsequent purchasers as they were not a party to the Agreement which is sought to be enforced.

14. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not valued the relief for Declaration and Cancellation