Rikhi Ram vs Dhoom Singh

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri in Civil Suit No. 357 of 1989 dated 20.2.1998 dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint.

The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of in agreement of sale executed by the respondents in June 1986. This suit was filed on 22.8.1989. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the defendant suffered a decree in favour of Ramesh Kumar and others on 24th April, 1990 in regard to the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application to amend the plaint contending that the decree suffered by the defendant in favour of Ramesh Kumar and others is not binding on him and also that the decree is hit by lis pendens and is seeking to implead the subsequent purchasers. That application was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence this revision petition.

There cannot be any doubt that when the property was transferred by suffering a decree subsequent to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff, the principle of lis pendens will apply. Therefore even without getting the plaint amended, the plaintiff can certainly contend that the decree is not binding on him since the decree was suffered during the pendency of his suit. But in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, it is just and proper to allow the amendment. The fact that the plaintiff filed the application for amendment seven years after the written statement was filed cannot be a ground for dismissing the application for amendment. No limitation has been provided for the amendment of the plaint. Pleadings can be amended under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC at any time during the pendency of the suit unless the claim is barred by time.

In the instant case the suit has already been filed by the plaintiff and during the pendency of the suit, the original transferor suffered a decree transferring the property to Ramesh Kumar and others. Therefore, there is no question of limitation.

In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.

Accordingly, I allow the revision petition and direct the amendment of the plaint. Needless to point out that the defendants have liberty to file the additional written statement to the amended plaint. No costs.