CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Vipin Sethi vs Dildar Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 1 December 2010 · Citation: (2011) 5 RCR(Civil) 532

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hemant Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 7818 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 371 words

Hemant Gupta, J.—CM No. 30849CII of 2010

Application is allowed. Filing of certified copies of Annexures P1 and P2 is dispensed with.

CR No. 7818 of 2010

2.

Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court on 20.5.2010 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was declined.

3.

Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated

8.10.2007. It is case of the petitioner that out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 2,40,000/ Rs. 2,30,000/ was paid to the defendant and that the possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner also sought decree for permanent injunction. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has been dispossessed. Consequently, the plaintiff wishes to amend the plaint so as to incorporate subsequent development in respect of dispossession of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has declined the amendment for the reason that the plaintiff wishes to fill the lacuna by seeking amendment in the plaint.

4.

Learned trial Court has recorded that the defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 17.7.2008. Since, the defendant has proceeded exparte before the trial Court he is not required to be served in terms of the Order 41 Rule 14 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5.

The plaintiff is seeking the specific performance of an agreement to sell. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit property but it is alleged that he has since been dispossessed. The plaintiff is entitled to possession in the suit for specific performance. In fact, the amendment sought is to enable the Court to pass a proper decree. There is no lacuna in the plaint which can be sought to have been filled up by the plaintiff. Learned trial Court has committed illegality while declining the amendment in a suit for specific performance to deny the relief of possession of the plaintiff.

6.

In view of the said fact, the present revision is allowed and the order passed by learned trial Court on 20.5.2010 is set aside and the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as sought for.