Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baleshwar vs Unknown on 18 May, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 1819 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1819 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.5.2012
Baleshwar
.. Petitioner
v.
Rajinder Singh and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Ajay Singh Ghanghas, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the respondents.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition filed by the plaintiff is to the order dated 2.3.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by him for amendment of the plaint to seek alternative relief of refund of earnest money along with interest in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of proviso to Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, `the Act'), alternative relief of refund of earnest money along with interest can be sought by way of amendment at any stage of the proceedings. The petitioner-plaintiff has already led his evidence for the purpose of adding the relief of refund of earnest money along with interest. He is not required to lead any evidence. It is only to take care of the eventuality where the court may think it appropriate to grant the alternative relief. He further submitted that though earlier the petitioner had filed an application for amendment of the plaint, however, the same was for impleading subsequent buyer of the property as one of the defendants. The proceedings in the suit Civil Revision No. 1819 of 2012 [2] will not be delayed, rather, in case the amendment is allowed, the court will be able to decide the dispute effectively.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that trial in the case had already started. It is at the stage of defendants' evidence. It is not the sweet-will of the petitioner-plaintiff to move application for amendment at any stage he deems fit. Earlier also, an application for amendment of the plaint was moved. The petitioner should have taken care of to add the relief in question at that stage. The object is only to delay the disposal of the suit and prolong the agony of the respondents-defendants.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
Proviso to Section 21(5) of the Act reads as under:
"21. Power to award compensation in certain cases.-
(1) to (4) xx xx xx
(5) No compensation shall be awarded under this section
unless the plaintiff has claimed such compensation in his plaint:
Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such compensation in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just, for including a claim for such compensation."
In the present case, the petitioner had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.1.2007. The suit was filed on 10.3.2007. Earlier one application was filed for seeking to implead subsequent buyer of the property which, as per the facts narrated in the impugned order, was allowed. The application for amendment has now been filed seeking alternative relief of refund of earnest money along with interest. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is that the same will not require leading of any further evidence by him. Whatever evidence has already been led will be sufficient for the court to grant the alternative relief of refund of earnest money along with interest and accordingly the trial of the suit will not be delayed.
Civil Revision No. 1819 of 2012 [3]Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the application for amendment of the plaint seeking to add alternative relief of refund of earnest money along with interest, deserves to be allowed. The impugned order passed by the court below is set aside and the application for amendment of the plaint is allowed. However, the same shall be subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as cost to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents by way of demand draft.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.5.2012 mk