L.N. Mittal, J.@mdashPlaintiff Hem Raj Sharma, aggrieved by order dated 3.11.2012 Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing
applications Annexure P/3 dated 16.8.2010 and Annexure P/4 dated 13.10.2010 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint has filed
this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said order. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit against
defendants/respondents for possession of suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.7.2005 allegedly executed by
defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants no. 2 and 3 were impleaded in the suit because part of the suit property was allegedly in their
possession.
2. By way of amendment of plaint, plaintiff wants to plead that defendant no. 1 executed power of attorney dated 2.6.2010 in favour of Pommi
Soni authorizing him to alienate the suit property on behalf of defendant no. 1 and accordingly, defendant no. 1 through the said attorney has sold
suit property through three sale deeds dated 16.8.2010, 7.9.2010 and 15.9.2010. Accordingly, the aforesaid attorney of defendant no. 1 as well
as vendees of the aforesaid sale deeds are sought to be impleaded as defendant nos. 4 to 7 to the suit and the aforesaid power of attorney and sale
deeds are also sought to be challenged.
3. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
4. Power of attorney was executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of Pommi Soni on 2.6.2010 during pendency of the suit and the plaintiff
immediately filed application dated 16.8.2010 Annexure P/3 for amendment of plaint. Thereafter three sale deeds were executed by the attorney
of defendant no. 1 on 16.8.2010, 7.9.2010 and 15.9.2010 necessitating the filing of the second application dated 13.10.2010 Annexure P/4.
These amendment applications were necessitated due to aforesaid actions of defendant no. 1 and his attorney during pendency of the suit and
therefore, there was no ground to reject the amendment applications. Impugned order passed by the trial court is patently perverse and illegal and
suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court is set
aside. Applications Annexures P/3 and P/4 filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint are allowed and plaintiff is permitted to make proposed
amendments in the plaint.
