VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana allowing an application filed by the legal representatives of Dalbara Singh defendant to amend the written statement.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract of sale dated 16.6.1986 qua the suit land measuring 32 kanals 18 marlas being 1/3rd share of the land measuring 98 kanals 14 marlas situate in the revenue estate of Naraingarh, tehsil Khanna for a consideration of Rs. 1,02,812.50 and seeking direction to defendant No. 1 to execute the sale-deed of this land on receipt of Rs. 42,812.50 after adjusting Rs. 60,000/- received by him as earnest money. In the suit declaration was also sought to the effect that the sale-deed dated 13.1.1987 executed by defendant No. 1 of half share of land measuring 9 kanals 6 marlas out of the land measuring 33 kanals 12 marlas in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 5 to be illegal inoperative, ineffective against his rights and not binding upon him. In the alternative a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,02,812.50 including refund of Rs. 60,000/- as earnest money and Rs. 42,812/- towards damages were claimed.
(3.) IN the suit defendant No. 1 was impleaded as a vendor, whereas defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded as co-sharers of the part of the suit land whereas defendant Nos. 4 to 5 were impleaded as subsequent vendees. Defendant No. 3 did not appear to contest the suit despite service. He was proceeded ex parte. However, defendant No. 2 did not choose to file written statement and the suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 5. Defendant No. 1 challenged the maintainability of the suit. It was claimed that the suit was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit was also challenged. It was claimed that the suit was not in terms of proforma Nos. 47 and 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Valuation of the suit was also challenged. Defendant No. 1 also denied his having entered into the agreement of sale dated 16.6.1986. He also denied the receipt of earnest money of Rs. 60,000/-. Delivery of possession was also disputed.;