Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar Saggar vs Manoj Kumar & Another on 20 January, 2011
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
Civil Revision No.6112 of 2009(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.6112 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision:-20.01.2011
Rajinder Kumar Saggar.
......Petitioner.
Versus
Manoj Kumar & Another.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.
Present:- Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate
for the Petitioner-Plaintiff.
Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate
for the respondents along with respondent no.1 in person.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Instant Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 08.08.2009(P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application filed by the plaintiff-Rajinder Kumar Saggar(hereinafter referred as petitioner) under Order 6 rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint was dismissed.
Facts giving rise to the aforesaid civil revision are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents- defendants from alienating, mortgaging, transferring the possession of the Civil Revision No.6112 of 2009(O&M) #2# house in dispute on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 8.01.2006 purported to be executed by the defendant in his favour for a consideration of Rs.25.00 lacs out of which Rs.1.25 lac was alleged to have been paid through cheque as earnest money. The suit was contested by the defendants by alleging that no agreement to sell was executed by them and in fact the amount of Rs.1.25 lac was taken by them from the petitioner as a friendly loan. During the pendency of the suit petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint in order to convert the suit from permanent injunction to that of suit for recovery of Rs.1,67,000/-(Rupees 1.25 lac as principal + Rs.31,000/- as interest and Rs.11,000/- as cost of the suit). Defendants-respondents filed reply to the said amendment application. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the aforesaid application holding that amendment introducing total new claim could not be allowed and that the amendment sought by the petitioner did not appear to be in good faith and raised a totally different, new and inconsistent case which will change the nature of the suit. It was further found by the trial Court that the amendment sought was not necessary for determining the real controversy involved in the suit. It was further held that even if the plaintiff/petitioner has to recover any amount from the defendant then the present suit could not be allowed to be a shortcut for getting the relief which could be obtained only by filing a separate suit for recovery. Hence the present revision petition.
Notice of motion was issued. During the course of hearing vide order dated 27.07.2010 the parties were sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for exploring the possibility of settlement. The matter was taken up by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre on Civil Revision No.6112 of 2009(O&M) #3# 12.08.2010 and 25.08.2010, on which dates neither of the parties put in appearance and the matter was sent back to the Court for further orders. Thereafter on 09.12.2010 learned Counsel for the respondent made a statement that respondent was willing to make the payment of the disputed amount and in order to show his bona fides undertook to bring a bank draft for Rs.50,000/- in the name of the plaintiff petitioner on the next date of hearing. Accordingly the matter was adjourned to 20.01.2011.
Pursuant to the undertaking given by the respondent on 09.12.2010 he is present today and has tendered a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of demand draft bearing number 182830 dated 17.01.2011 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank(photocopy of demand draft retained on record) in favour of petitioner-plaintiff Rajinder Kumar Saggar in the court and further submits that he shall furnish an undertaking before the trial Court regarding payment of remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- in equal monthly installments plus Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses i.e. total amounting to Rs.80,000/-. The said demand draft bearing number 182830 dated 17.01.2011 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- of Punjab National Bank has been received by the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff in the court today and further undertakes that after furnishing of the undertaking by the respondent no.1/defendant Manoj Kumar before the trial court the petitioner-plaintiff shall withdraw the said suit for permanent injunction.
Statements of respondent no.1/defendant Manoj Kumar Prabhakar and that of Sh. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the Petitioner-Plaintiff have been separately recorded.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties learned Civil Revision No.6112 of 2009(O&M) #4# counsel for the parties state that no further orders are required to be passed and the instant civil revision petition may be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 20th January, 2011 Vinay