An amendment that converts a suit for permanent injunction into one for specific performance fundamentally changes the suit's nature and is impermissible. Furthermore, a simple receipt without essential contractual terms cannot be specifically enforced as a valid contract.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff laying challenge to the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as under:-

22.06.2013: The plaintiff/petitioner had filed Civil Suit dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure P1) for permanent injunction.

09.12.2013: The petitioner moved the instant application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC (Annexure P2) on 09.12.2013, for amendment of plaint.

18.12.2013: The defendants had filed reply dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure P3) to the above-said application.

12.08.2016: Vide impugned order dated 12.08.2016, the said application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that trial in the present case was yet to commence as issues have not yet been framed. As such, application of the petitioner could not have been dismissed. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the amendment sought by the petitioner is necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation. However, the impugned order has been passed and application of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reason. Learned counsel argues that the case law in this regard is very clear inasmuch as the liberal view is required to be taken. Learned counsel further argues that admittedly, the earnest money has been received by Yashpal predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/defendants herein. The said acknowledgement is also mentioned in the receipt executed by said Yashpal in favour of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is very much entitled to seek specific performance against the respondents, and the said relief could not have been denied to the petitioner. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

4. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 120400, wherein it is held that:-

“It is mandatory on court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.”

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants vehemently opposes the submissions of the petitioner and submits that initially Suit had been filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction. Vide the impugned amendment, the petitioner is seeking to amend the Suit to add relief of possession by way of specific performance. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Civil Court has rightly held in the impugned order that the same would change the nature of the Suit. Accordingly, the impugned order suffers from no error and present Petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions of the respondents.

8. The petitioner has filed civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from alienating the suit property. Vide the application (Annexure P2), the petitioner is seeking to amend the Civil Suit by adding relief of possession by way of specific performance of a Receipt dated 06.03.2013 allegedly executed by Yashpal in favour of the petitioner to acknowledge sale of suit property to the petitioner.