Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

Petitioner–Chander Jot Singh has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Paonta Sahib (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Civil Misc. Application No.68 of 2024, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), in Civil Appeal No.51 of 2022, titled as Chander Jot Singh versus Dharam Singh.

By way of the order dated 10.01.2025, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the application filed, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC., which was filed by petitioner Chander Jot Singh, in the appeal, which has been filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2022, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Civil Suit No.138/1 of 2011, titled as Chander Jot Singh versus Dharam Singh & Others.

By way of judgment and decree dated 10.06.2022, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by petitioner Chander Jot Singh, for specific performance against the defendant.

Parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

Brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up as under:-

Plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 16.12.2008, which was executed in his favour by Shri Dasheru Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendant with regard to the land measuring 755-60 square meters, comprised in Khasra No.57, situated in Up Sampada, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), for a sale consideration of Rs.6,30,000/-.

In the said suit, after framing issues, the learned trial Court has directed the parties to adduce evidence. Thereafter, the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.06.2022.

Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC has been moved by the plaintiff. When, the application was filed, at that time, the appeal was listed for arguments.

The application was filed on the ground that when, the counsel for the plaintiff (appellant) was preparing the case for arguments, then, it transpired that an important registered document, being Power of Attorney No.602/2008, dated 16.12.2008, having been registered by late Shri Dasheru Ram, with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff could not be placed on record in evidence and exhibited, in accordance with law.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 16.12.2008, Shri Dasheru Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, was owner in possession of the suit property and he had executed an agreement of sale regarding the suit property, in favour of the plaintiff. On the day, when, the agreement was executed, Shri Dasheru Ram, predecessor-in interest of the defendants received the entire sale consideration from the plaintiff and thereafter, he executed the registered Power of Attorney bearing No.602/2008, dated 16.12.2008, in favour of the plaintiff, as such, the sale deed was only left to be executed and registered.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that when, the case was drafted for being filed before the learned trial Court, necessary facts have been apprised to the learned counsel and the registered Power of Attorney was handed over to him for appending the same with the suit, but, inadvertently, and on account of bona fide mistake, on the part of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the said document could not be placed on record.

On the basis of the above facts, the plaintiff has sought the following amendment in the suit:

“2(A). That on