CR 2648/2014

108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision:24/04/2014.

Jit Singh and another

.............Petitioners

v.

Sukhdev Singh

.............Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:-

Mr.Atul Jain,Advocate for the petitioners

Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)

Defendants/vendors are in revision aggrieved against the

order dated 3.1.2014 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the

application of the respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for

amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

It is not in dispute that there is an agreement to sell dated

16.2.2012 executed by the petitioners-owners for sale of 16 kanals of

land for a total sale consideration of Rs.20 lacs in favour of the

respondent-plaintiff. A sum of Rs.7.5 lacs was received as earnest

money. The target date for execution of sale deed was 15.5.2012 which

was mutually extended to 20.7.2012 and thereafter till 16.10.2012.

Respondent-plantiff filed a suit on 24.5.2013 for permanent injunction

seeking to restrain the petitioners-defendants from alienating,

transferring or otherwise creating a charge over the suit land. After

filing of the written statement by the petitioners-defendants, plaintiff

filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the

Joshi Rajinder Prashad

2014.04.24 14:16

I attest to the accuracy of this

Order.

High Court, Chandigarh.

CR 2648/2014

108

plaint for relief of possession by way of specific performance and the

alternative relief of refund of earnest money alongwith damages. Since

the suit was at the initial stage in which issues were yet to be framed

and further was within 3 years of the extended date of execution of sale

deed, learned trial Court has allowed the application for amendment of

the plaint.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at length,I

find that there is no legal infirmity in the order since neither the suit is

barred by limitation nor any prejudice has been caused to the other

party.

An argument was sought to be raised regarding the suit to

be not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC,

however, this Court is not inclined to accept the same as Sub Rule (3)

of the same Order provides that if a person is entitled to more than one

relief on the same cause of action and he omits to claim, the same can

be claimed with the leave of the Court.

It can also not be disputed that the plaintiff could withdraw

the earlier suit under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC with permission to file a

fresh, to avoid such multiplicity, therefore, the Court has permitted the

amendment which cannot be faulted.

Dismissed.

24.04.2014

(Jaswant Singh)

joshi

Judge

Joshi Rajinder Prashad

2014.04.24 14:16

I attest to the accuracy of this

Order.

High Court, Chandigarh.