Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS matter comes up on a miscellaneous appeal under Sec. 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(f) CPC filed by the appellant - defendant No. 1 (hereinafter 'the defendant') against the order dt. 3 -6 -2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City, whereby the defence of the defendant has been struck off by the trial Court by resort to Order 11 Rule 21 CPC in the respondent -plaintiff's (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') suit for specific performance in respect of a purported agreement to sell dt. 27.7.1988. The State of Rajasthan and Municipal council Hindaun City were also impleaded subsequently in the said suit through an amendment. Heard learned counsel for the defendant, as also the plaintiff. The respondents -defendants No. 2 to 4 are proforma parties in this appeal.
(2.) WRITTEN statement to the plaint was filed by the defendant wherein it was stated that the suit land had been sold to others and as such a decree for specific performance could not be granted by the Court as prayed without impleading the subsequent purchasers as party. It was stated that the land was in the possession of subsequent purchasers. As the reference to subsequent purchasers was vague in the written statement, the plaintiff moved an application on 3.1.2002 purported to be one under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC, but in effect seeking better particulars. Vide order dt. 19.2.2002, the trial Court required the defendant to furnish better particulars. Pursuant to order dt. 19.2.2002, the defendant did not furnish better particulars. Dissatisfied with the "better particulars" supplied by the defendant pursuant to order dt. 19.2.2002, the plaintiff moved an application on 30.9.2002 purporting to be one Order 11 Rule 21 CPC for striking off the defence of the defendant as he had failed to comply with the directions issued by the Court on 19.2.2002 and was obfuscating requisite information and delaying the trial deliberately to defeat the plaintiff's right to obtain an executable decree in his suit for specific performance. The application was opposed. In the meantime the plaintiff appears to have moved an application before the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for impleading the State of Rajasthan and the Municipal Council, Hindaun City as defendant in his suit. The trial Court vide order dt. 3.3.2005 permitted the plaintiff to implead them as defendants. Requisite amendment was carried out. Thereupon the defendant on 16.5.2005 filed an amended written statement to the amended plaint and in the process used the opportunity to plead inter alia that because of litigation in respect of suit land the arrangement by which the property had earlier been put to sale as referred to in the original written statement had ended, the sale cancelled and possession of the suit property had been restored to defendant. In rejoinder to the amended written statement, objections were taken by the plaintiff to the variation in the defendant's defence on the issue of sale of suit land. The matter stood before the trial Court thus.
(3.) AT this stage the trial Court referring to its earlier order dt. 19.2.2002, and its non compliance by the defendant by filing vague and incomplete "better particulars" as to whom the suit land had been sold, vide order dt. 3.6.2006 struck off the defence of the defendants under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC. No cognizance of the amended written statement and its effect for whatever its worth averring the cancellation of the sale arrangement was taken.;