Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 692 (MAD)

Venkatesh v. Padmavathi & Another

2002-07-29

P.D.DINAKARAN

body2002
Judgment :- By consent, the revision itself is taken up for hearing. 2. The revision is directed against the order dated 24.4.2002 made in I.A.No.17 of 2002 in A.S.No.30 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Erode at Bhavani, refusing to permit the revision petitioner to amend the plaint at the appellate stage. The details of amendment reads as under. " (1) After paragraph 3 add a new paragraph 3(a) as follows, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff is entitled for the refund of Rs.80,000/- paid to the defendants towards sale consideration with 12% interest from the date of suit. Hence the plaintiff seeking the alternative relief for such refund. (2) For Paragraph 5 of the plaint substitute the following: The plaintiff value the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.80,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.6,000.50 is paid thereon under Section 42 R/W.22 of the Tamilnadu Court fee and Valuation Act of 1955. DETAILS OF VALUATION: 1. For Specific performance:- Total sale consideration Rs.80,000.00 Court fee paid U/s.42 Rs. 6.000.00 2. For Refund of sale consideration Paid:- Sale consideration paid Rs.80,000.00 Court fee payable U/s.22 Rs. 6,000.00 3. At the end of Sub-Paragraph 6(a) add the following:- Or in the alternative the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the defendants to pay plaintiff the sum of Rs.80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of suit till payment." 3. The permission to amend the plaint sought for under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, was rejected by order dated 24.4.2002 made in I.A.No.17 of 2002 referred to above on the only ground that the amendment sought for would change the very character of the suit. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner/appellant in A.S.No.30 of 2002, laid O.S.No.27 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani, for specific performance of an agreement dated 5.2.1993 seeking a decree (a) directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties within the time to be stipulated by this Honourable Court and on their default, the Honourable Court itself may execute such sale deed on their behalf; and (b) putting the plaintiff in possession of the suit properties. But, the suit was resisted by the respondents denying the very execution of the agreement dated 5.2.1993. 5. The learned Sub Judge, by decree and judgment dated 22.11.2000 made in O.S.No.27 of 1996, accepting the case of the respondents/defendants, dismissed the suit. Hence, the revision petitioner filed A.S.No.152 of 2001 on the file of the learned District Judge, Erode, which now stands transferred to the file learned Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court-IV, Erode, and renumbered as A.S.No.30 of 2002. 6. At this stage, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.17 of 2002 seeking an amendment in the plaint invoking Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, and the same was dismissed by order dated 24.4.2002, holding that the amendment sought for would change the character of the suit. Hence, the above revision. 7. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, which reads as under. "Amendment of Pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and on such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties." 8. It is well settled in law that the amendment under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, can be made at any stage of the proceedings which includes the appellate stage. 9. In my considered opinion, the power to allow an amendment is, no doubt, wide and may at any stage appropriately exercised in the interest of justice. While refusing to permit the amendment to amend the pleadings, the Court has to exercise the discretion conferred on it judiciously and the greater ought to be the care while exercising such judicial consideration. 10. The Apex Court, time and again, emphasised that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer of amendment of pleadings, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. 11. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment sought for, viz. seeking the relief of compensation in lieu of or in addition to specific performance sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff as proposed in the instant case, would not, in my considered opinion, change the character of the suit. 11. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment sought for, viz. seeking the relief of compensation in lieu of or in addition to specific performance sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff as proposed in the instant case, would not, in my considered opinion, change the character of the suit. On the other hand, if the amendment is refused, it would cause a great hardship and injustice to the revision petitioner/plaintiff. At the same time, by permitting the amendment, the respondent/defendant would not be put into any loss or hardship as he categorically denies the execution of the said agreement itself. 12. That apart, the Apex Court in Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh reported in AIR 1992 SC 1604 has held that the amendment sought for in lieu of or in addition to specific performance whether the plaintiff has not abandoned the relief of specific performance, the Court will allow the amendment at any stage of the proceedings. 13. Applying the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, I am obliged to set aside the order dated 24.4.2002 made in I.A.No.17 of 2001 and allow the I.A.No.17 of 2001.