Rozy Sachdeva vs. Parkash Kaur Since Deceased Through Her Lrs

SECTION IV-B

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26421/2023

COURT NO.8

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-10-2023 in CR No. 1146/2023 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Harvana At Chandigarh)

ROZY SACHDEVA

Petitioner(s)

Respondent $(s)$

VERSUS

PARKASH KAUR SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HER LRS & ORS.

Date: 23-09-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

For Petitioner(s) Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjiv Narang, AOR Mr. Laxmikant Shukla, Adv. Mr. Surendra Gautam, Adv. Mr. Shreejit Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Being aggrieved of the impugned order rejecting the $1.$ application for amendment in a suit for specific performance filed by petitioner, confirmed by the High Court, the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.

We have perused the averments of para 16 of the suit, by

which the petitioner has clearly set forth that she is ready and

willing to get executed and register the sale deed of the property and after clearance of the title of remaining part of the property under agreement, from legal heirs of Mehar Singh s/o Bhola Singh. The title of the remaining property was declared in favour of the defendant as per the award dated 08.02.2020 passed in Lok Adalat. In furtherance to the said subsequent development, the application seeking amendment was filed asking specific performance of the remaining part of the property title of which was earlier not clear. By the impugned orders, the Trial Court and the High Court rejected the said application without considering the said relevant aspect.

3. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the proposed amendment is premised on the fact that after clearing the title of defendant in remaining portion of the property which is within the subject matter of the agreement to sell for which specific performance was prayed for in the suit. As stated in para 16 of the suit, plaintiff is ready and willing to get executed the sale deed of the property on which title of the defendant is not disputed. It was further pleaded that on clearing the title of defendant on remaining part of the property she is ready to get executed the sale deed in her favour. After passing of the award in Lok Adalat declaring title of the defendant on remaining property, by an application amendment in the suit was sought which is rejected. In view of the above facts, rejection of the amendment as directed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court is without due consideration of the material facts as recorded, which we cannot affirm.

• 4. In our view, the amendment as proposed in the suit is based on subsequent development and for the piece of land which was part of the agreement to sell, therefore, rejection of the amendment was wholly unjustified.
• 5. Accordingly, we set aside the orders impugned and allow the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment in the suit. We

3

further grant liberty to the respondent(s) to apply for consequential amendment in written statement raising all the defences as available including the plea of limitation.

6. The present Special Leave Petition is allowed in above terms.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (NAND KISHOR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER