Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALKAR SINGH versus AJB DEVELOPERS PVT.LIMITED

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Balkar Singh v. AJB Developers Pvt.Limited - CR-4685-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 11511 (30 November 2006)

CR No.4685 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.4685 of 2006

Date of Decision: 4.12.2006

Balkar Singh ..Petitioner

Vs.

AJB Developers Pvt.Limited ...Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr..S.K.Sharma Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate,

for the respondent.

Vinod K.Sharma, J. (Oral)

Present revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar allowing the application moved by the respondent-plaintiff for amending the suit.

The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property in view of the agreement to sell executed between the parties. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent has sought to amend the suit to get it converted to one for specific performance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this CR No.4685 of 2006 2

amendment could not have been allowed as it would change the nature of the suit i.e. one from suit for permanent injunction to suit for specific performance of agreement especially when there was no agreement between the parties.

Learned Trial Court was right in allowing the application for amendment in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarlok Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal (1996-2) P.L.R. 649.

However, it is made clear that the limitation for enforcement of suit for performance would be from the date of amendment as ordered by the learned Trial Court and it would be open to the petitioner to contest that there was no agreement and that the learned trial court would then decide the questions raised on appreciation of evidence.

There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court which may warrant for interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

(Vinod K.Sharma)

4.12.2006 Judge

rp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.