Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Gupta vs Kailash And 2 Others on 2 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17945 Court No. - 52 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11389 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sanjay Gupta Respondent :- Kailash And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sundeep Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:
"I. Issue a suitable order or direction for setting aside the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Jhansi in Civil Revision No. 32 of 2022 (Sanjay Gupta Vs. Kailash and others) whereby the revision and confirm the order dated 12.07.2022 whereby amendment application (57AC-1) moved in Original Suit No. 112/2013, New Number O.S. No. 759 of 2019 (Sanjay Gupta V/s Kailash and others) was dismissed. (Annexure-1 to the petition)."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit No. 759 of 2019 for specific performance of an agreement dated 04.09.2008. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant sold the property in dispute in favour of one Chanchal Kumar who have been impleaded as defendant no. 3 in the suit during the pendency of the suit. The suit is at the stage of hearing. The plaintiff/petitioner filed an amendment application for incorporating a plea that the sale deed executed by the original defendant nos. 1 & 2 in favour of the defendant no. 3 is barred by Section 157 (aa) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial court by its order dated 12.07.2022. Against the said order, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a revision No. 32/2022 and the same has also been dismissed.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below has erroneously rejected the application for amendment of the petitioner as the petitioner wanted to incorporate a legal plea as to validity of sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 & 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 and no prejudice is going to be caused to the other party.
5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the suit is for specific performance of an agreement and in case the petitioner succeeds in his suit then the sale deed executed by the defendant nos. 1 & 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 during the pendency of the suit will be hit by doctrine of lis pendens and defendant no. 3 has to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In case the suit of the plaintiff fails, in that case, the validity of the sale deed is of no issue.
6. In my view since the plea as to the validity of the sale deed barred by Section 157(aa) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is a legal plea, there is no bar for the plaintiff to raise the said issue before the court below at the time of hearing of the suit, for which no amendment is necessary.
7. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2024 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.)