Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure P8) whereby the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, had been declined by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Malerkotla on the ground that it was the plaintiff's own case that it was not an agreement to sell but it was just a token of agreement to sell and therefore, permission could not be granted to convert the suit into a suit for specific performance.
(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction was filed restraining the defendant -respondents from alienating the land measuring 6 bighas 10 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhogi Wal Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, the details of which were given in the plaint filed on 17.06.2008 (Annexure P1). The case of the petitioner -plaintiff was that on 15.04.2008, the defendant had showed the copy of the sale deed in her favour and represented that she was owner of the suit land and had agreed to sell the suit land @ Rs.14 lacs per bigha. A sum of Rs.5 lacs had been given on the said date as token money to execute the biana (agreement to sell) on 21.04.2008 whereas another Rs.5 lacs was to be paid to the defendant -respondent and another Rs.15 lacs, on or before 15.06.2008 and the rest of the amount on or before 15.09.2008. The plaintiff had been always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and on 21.04.2004, he had come with Rs.5 lacs to make the payment and to get the agreement executed in her favour but the defendant did not agree and put off the matter and accordingly, suit was filed. The plea taken by the defendant -respondent was that the defendant never agreed to sell the land. The alleged token of agreement was a result of planned conspiracy and prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with the witness and scribe. The defendant neither executed the alleged token of agreement nor put the signatures on the same and it was a false and fabricated document with the witness Mohd. Arshad and Shiv Kumar, who were working as property dealers. The defendant resided in Chandigarh and after purchasing the property, had gone to Chandigarh and the property dealers had taken the sale deed from the office of the Sub -Registrar and had to sanction the mutation in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff was not even known to the defendant and had never seen her but the property dealers and had been given unsigned blank stamp papers purchased by the defendant prior to the incident since the defendant had faith in the aforesaid property dealers.
(3.) THE suit was sought to be converted into a suit for specific performance by filing an application dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure P5) on the ground that the last instalment was to be paid on or before 15.09.2008 and cause of action had arisen. The application was opposed by filing reply (Annexure P7) that the plaintiff's own case was that it was an alleged token for agreement to sell and once there was never any agreement to sell, the question of plaintiff having any cause of action to file the present suit did not arise. The nature of the suit would totally change and would defeat the ends of justice. As noticed, the application was dismissed by the Trial Court.;