Kuldeep Kaur and Others vs Kirpal Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Legal representatives of Harbans Singh-defendant no. 1, since deceased (earlier the sole defendant), have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P-3), passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-1), filed by respondent no. 1-plaintiff for amendment of plaint and for impleading respondents no. 2 to 4 as parties to the suit. Plaintiff filed suit against Harbans Singh as sole defendant for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 04.11.2003 and also for possession of the suit land and for permanent injunction. Status quo order was passed in the said civil suit. However, partition mutation of the joint land was got sanctioned by the defendant and on the basis thereof, the land has been alienated to Gagandeep Kaur Mann, sought to be impleaded as defendant no. 4 along with Sita Ram and Jeet Ram as defendants no. 2 and 3. The said mutation of partition and consequent sale deed are also sought to be challenged in the suit by amendment of plaint being not binding on the plaintiff.

Petitioners, by filing reply (Annexure P-2), controverted the averments made in the amendment application and resisted the same.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-3), has allowed application (Annexure P-1) filed by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendant no. 1 have filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that defendants no. 2 and 3 are not vendors, but are co-sharers, and therefore, they could not be impleaded as party to the suit. It was also argued that the suit land was not sold to defendant no. 4, and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, which cannot be accepted.

Admittedly, partition mutation no. 754 was sanctioned during pendency of the suit and consequent thereto, some land other than the suit land was allotted to the petitioners, whereas the suit land went to defendants no. 2 and 3, and thereafter, the petitioners sold the land allotted to them in partition to defendant no. 4, vide sale deed dated 17.07.2013, during pendency of the suit and immediately thereafter, plaintiff filed amendment application (Annexure P-1) dated 23.07.2013. In these circumstances, proposed amendment of plaint has been rightly allowed by the trial court, having been necessitated by subsequent events that have taken place during pendency of the suit. The contentions sought to be raised by counsel for the petitioners relate to merits of the proposed amendment, which cannot be looked into at this stage and the same may be raised at appropriate stage in the trial court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the application (Annexure P-1) has been rightly allowed by the trial court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to require interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the suit.