A party cannot use an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to re-incorporate a relief that has been explicitly relinquished or abandoned during the course of the proceedings.

PANKAJ JAIN, J

(Oral)

1. The present revision petition is directed against order dated 21.02.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar (Annexure P-6), whereby an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint stands declined.

2. The plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.03.1994. The defendant was, however, proceeded against ex parte.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff suffered statement restricting his claim to be for alternative relief of recovery of Rs.75,000/- (Annexure P-3). The suit was decreed on 21.3.2012 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar vide ex parte decree.

4. The ex parte decree was later on set aside on the application filed by the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendments read as under:

“5. That the following amendments are required to be made in the original plaint:-

(i) That at the first page of the plaint in the first line of head-note A of the original plaint, after the words "decree" and before the words "of specific performance", the words/line "of possession by way" is liable to be deleted. Similarly at the first page of the plaintiff in the second line of head-note A of the original plaint, after the words "agreement to sell" and before the "dated 09/03/1994" the words/line "/unregistered sale deed", is liable to be inserted.

(ii) That head-note "B" of the original plaint is liable to be deleted.

(iii) That in the second line of para no. 2, after the words "agreement to sell and before the words "their ", the words/line "/unregistered sale deed is liable to be inserted.

(iv) That in the second last line of para no.5, after the words "decree" and before the words "by way of", the words/line for possession" is liable to be deleted.

(v) That para no.6 of the original plaint is liable to be deleted and in it's place, the following new para is liable to be inserted:-

"That it is worthwhile to mention here that out of whole of the subject matter of the unregistered sale deed dated 09/03/1994, 10 Marias of property falls within a Lal-lakir whereas 5 Marlas bears khasra no.13//18(3K 17MLs). Since in the revenue records, name of the defendant and his brother Ram Parkash i.e. executor of unregistered sale deed dated 09/03/1994 was continue to appear in the column of ownership despite of the fact that they have executed an unregistered sale deed dated 09/03/1994 pertaining to the same in favour of plaintiff's predecessor-in interest in suit property and same was casting a serious clouds on the rights of plaintiff over suit property. So, Plaintiff has filed the present suit for getting execution of registered sale deed in his favour on the basis of unregistered sale deed, against only the defendant Anant Ram as Ram prakash i.e. the other executor of unregistered sale deed dated 09/03/1994, has already executed a regd. Sale deed dated 8/09/2009 in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 09/03/1994 and mutation on the basis of said sale deed was also sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of same. In other words, plaintiff wants to get execution of only registered sale deed in his favour from the defendant by filing the present suit on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 09/03/1994 for giving effect to the letter an