Dismissed

Ram Pal v. Surjit Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2023CR/6116/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, this High Court dismissed the plea challenging the lower Appellate Court's order dismissing an application to amend a plaint. The petitioner sought to insert the specific address of the suit property, arguing it was necessary after the suit for specific performance was dismissed on those grounds.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits; pending applications stood disposed off.

Ram Pal Vs Surjit Singh and Anr. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CR No.6116 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

202 CR No.6116 of 2016 Reserved on : 20.01.2023 Date of Decision: 03.02.2023

¶5

Ram Pal ....Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Surjit Singh and Another ....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶9

Present : Mr. Dinesh Singh Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amarjot Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

ALKA SARIN, J.

¶12

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the lower Appellate Court whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

¶13

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffpetitioner filed a suit for specific performance in respect of a house. The said suit qua possession was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.2014 though it was decreed qua the alternate relief of refund of earnest money. The plaintiff-petitioner preferred an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff-petitioner by way of the amendment sought to insert a sentence inter-alia in para 2, head-note and prayer clause of the plaint so as

¶14

to give a description of the suit property. In para 2 of the plaint the following sentence was sought to be inserted :

¶15

“The said house is bearing No.84 situated in Village Lahora, U.T. Chandigarh.”

¶16

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.02.03 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶17

CR No.6116 of 2016

¶18

-2-

¶19

The said amendment application was contested by the defendant-respondents and eventually came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2016. Hence, the present revision petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that the Trial Court had dismissed the suit for possession by way of specific performance mainly on the ground that the suit property had not been sufficiently described in the plaint, however, the alternate relief of refund of earnest money was granted and hence, it was necessary now to file the present application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the description of the suit property as House No.84 situated in Village Lahora, U.T. Chandigarh.

¶21

Per contra , learned counsel for the defendant-respondents submitted that by way of the amendment the plaintiff-petitioner is seeking to fill-up the gaps in his case and that too after the Trial Court had decided against him and which cannot be permitted.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

The lower Appellate Court has noticed in the impugned order that the agreement to sell itself did not describe the property as bearing House No.84, Village Lahora, U.T. Chandigarh. Once the agreement itself did not bear the said number it was not understandable as to how the house number can now be introduced. A perusal of the amendment application reveals that the same is totally bereft of any reasoning as to why the number of the house could not be incorporated at an earlier stage. It is also totally silent as to why if the house, for which the suit was filed, bears a number, the same was not incorporated in the plaint while describing the suit property. The Trial Court in its judgment dated 26.08.2014 held inter-alia JITENDER KUMAR 2023.02.03 13:49I attest to the accuracy and that “Bare perusal of agreement to sell Ex.PW1/XY shows that there is no integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶24

-3-

¶25

CR No.6116 of 2016

¶26

description of property in this agreement to sell. No house number is mentioned in the agreement to sell. There is no site plan attached to the agreement to sell. The site plan attached with the present plaint Mark D/2 is neither signed by the draftsman. The site plan is silent as to direction and dimensions. Perusal of both the agreement to sell and site plan shows that there is no dimension or direction shown in the site plan” .

¶27

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower Appellate Court. The present revision petition being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶28

It is made clear that any observation made herein shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶29

( ALKA SARIN ) 03.02.2023 JUDGE jk

¶30

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶31

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.02.03 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

Ram Pal v. Surjit Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pal v. Surjit Singh and Anr.

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

(O&M) Darshan Singh Vs Gurdev Kaur

Paramjit Singh Vs Gurdev Kaur

Lehmber Singh Vs Sanjay Kumar

Hawa Singh Vs Monika

Kharak Singh Vs Baljeet Singh and Anr.

Bhimsen Handa Vs Rita Khullar & Ors.