Dismissed

Gurdit Singh @ Gurdita Singh v. Nirmal Rani @ Nirmala Rani

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2011CR/6694/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed CM no.27229-CII/2011 setting aside a revision petition under Article 226. The High Court dismissed the petition challenging an order permitting amendment of plaint to convert injunction to specific performance, relying on Kuljit Singh and Sampath Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition under Article 226 dismissed. Amendment of plaint allowed by trial court discharged.

Gurdit Singh @ Gurdita Singh Vs Nirmal Rani @… — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No.6694/2011(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.6694/2011(O&M) Date of decision: 18.11.2011.

¶5

Gurdit Singh & Gurdita Singh

¶6

....................Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Nirmal Rani @ Nirmala Rani and others

¶9

.....................Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh

¶11

Present: Mr.Saravpreet Gurna,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)

¶13

CM No.27229-CII/2011 is allowed. Agreement to sell dated 24.6.2005 is taken on record as Annexure P-5.

¶14

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.

¶15

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barred as the general power of attorney executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff alongwith agreement to sell was withdrawn in the year 2007 and the amendment sought is in the year 2011.

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶17

CR No.6694/2011(O&M) 2

¶18

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, PLR Vol.CLIV-(2009-2)682; and Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another , 2002(3)Civil Court Cases 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.

¶19

Dismissed.

¶20

18.11.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Ju dge

Gurdit Singh @ Gurdita Singh v. Nirmal Rani @ Nirmala Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdit Singh @ Gurdita Singh v. Nirmal Rani @ Nirmala Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharambir Vs Baru Ram

Joginder Kumar Vs Ishro Devi and Ors.

Sukha @ Sukhwinder Singh Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

Mehar Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Village Nijjran and Anr.

Mohinder Singh Vs Gurmit Singh and Ors.

Vidhyawati and Another Vs Manoj and Others