Dismissed

Neena Bhalla and Ors. v. Sunita

Punjab & Haryana HC11 May 2011CR/1933/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed Civil Revision challenging Trial Court's order allowing amendment of plaint in specific performance case. Court held amendment causes no prejudice as defendants can amend written statement and plaintiff could not claim prior knowledge of highway declaration.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by not interfering with Trial Court order allowing amendment of plaint in specific performance suit.

Neena Bhalla and Ors. Vs Sunita — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1933 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1933 of 2011 Date of Decision: 11.5.2011

¶5

¶6

Neena Bhalla & Ors.

.. Petitioners

Vs.

Sunita

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR

¶12

Present:Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

**Mr. R.C. Setia, Advocate and Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate for the respondent. *****

¶14

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶15

The present petitioners are the defendants in the suit for specific performance filed by respondent-plaintiff. They are aggrieved with the order dated 18.1.2011 by dint of which the prayer of the respondent for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

It is evident from the records that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9.10.2006 by virtue of which the defendants allegedly agreed to sell 173 marlas of land to her. However, claiming that after filing of the suit she came to know that some of the land, the subject matter of aforesaid agreement to sell, comes within the area which was declared National Highway and as such the same cannot be transferred in her name, she sought amendment in the plaint to the extent that except the portion of land which falls within the ambit of National Highway, the remaining be transferred to her after performance of her part of the agreement and it be also declared that the defendants were having no legal right to receive the consideration in respect of the aforesaid strip of the

¶18

Civil Revision No. 1933 of 2011

¶19

¶20

land and instead of Rs.95,00,000/- as balance sale consideration, the same comes to Rs. 27,50,000/-, after adjustment. It is evident from the records that the case is at the preliminary stage. From the facts of the case it cannot be said with certainity that it was within the knowledge of the plaintiff prior to the filing of the suit that some portion of the land comprised in the said agreement to sell falls within the area declared as National Highway. That apart no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants with proposed amendment, who obviously have a right to file amended written statement. No fault could be found with the approach adopted by the learned trial Court.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶22

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶23

May 11, 2011 Jiten

Neena Bhalla and Ors. v. Sunita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neena Bhalla and Ors. v. Sunita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrik Singh Vs Gurmit Singh etc.

(O&M) Darshan Ram Vs Bachna

Hukam Singh Vs District Town Pallner Gurgaon

Dharmpal and Others Vs Po, Labour Court and Others

Uma Devi and Anr. Vs Manoj

Amar Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Vill. Jheeta Kalan and Ors.