AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jaswant Singh, J.—CM No. 27229-CII/2011 is allowed. Agreement to sell dated 24.6.2005 is taken on record as Annexure P-5.
Defendant/petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 5.9.2011 whereby the
application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for amendment of the plaint has been allowed for converting the suit for
permanent injunction by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.6.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit for specific performance was clearly barred as the general power of attorney executed in
favour of the respondent/plaintiff alongwith agreement to sell was withdrawn in the year 2007 and the amendment sought is in the year 2011.
After hearing the learned counsel, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
It is apparent from the agreement to sell that the defendant/petitioner had allegedly received the entire sale consideration and possession handed
over with further condition that sale deed will be executed as and when called upon by the respondent/plaintiff. It is further apparent that it is only in
the year 2010 that the respondent/ plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction on the apprehension of defendant/petitioner alienating his suit
property in favour of a third party. The learned trial court in view of settled law in Kuljit Singh v. Sukhdev Singh and other, (2009) PLR 54 682;
and Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another, 2002(3) CCC 364 (SC), in my opinion, has rightly permitted the amendment as the cause of
action at best would be taken to have accrued when the suit for injunction was filed and hence prima facie the plea of amendment sought being
barred by limitation would not be tenable.
Dismissed.