Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1220 (AP)

Vemcharla Padmavathamma v. Shantilal

2005-12-23

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2005
( 1 ) REVISION-PETITIONERS are the defendants in a suit filed by the respondent against them for recovery of the advance paid by him under an agreement of sale of the property belonging to them, on the ground revision petitioners committed breach of the agreement in which revision- petitioners filed written statement inter alia contending that it is the respondent that committed breach of the agreement and for the breach committed by him, they suffered a huge loss, and so they are entitled to forfeit the amount paid by the respondent under the agreement of sale as advance. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, they filed a petition seeking leave of the Court to amend their written statement inter alia contending that as they had to sell the property covered by the agreement of sale under a registered sale deed dated 21-11-2002 for a small price to Smt. Kamala devi and incurred a heavy loss, that plea also may be permitted to be incorporated in their written statement, on the ground that the plea sought to be taken by them is but an elaboration of the plea already taken in their written statement. The trial Court dismissed the said petition. Hence, this revision. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioners is that since the Court can take into consideration the subsequent events, the fact that the revision-petitioners were constrained to sell the property covered by the agreement of sale at a lower price, is a relevant fact in the suit and so the revision-petitioners may be permitted to bring the subsequent events on record by suitably amending their written statement. ( 4 ) THE suit is for refund of the amount paid by the respondent to the revision- petitioners under an agreement of sale. Revision-petitioners did not file a counterclaim seeking damages from the respondent for the breach allegedly committed by him and they also did not file a suit for specific performance of the agreement between them and the respondent. So, the only issue that has to be decided in the suit would be whether the respondent is entitled to recover the amount paid by him as advance under the agreement from the revision-petitioners or not. So, the only issue that has to be decided in the suit would be whether the respondent is entitled to recover the amount paid by him as advance under the agreement from the revision-petitioners or not. So, even assuming that revision-petitioners incurred heavy loss, irrespective of the quantum of loss incurred by them, no relief can be granted to them in the suit filed by the respondent. In view thereof, quantum of loss, if any, suffered by the revision-petitioners, due to the alleged breach of contract by the respondent, has no relevance in a suit for refund of the money paid by the vendee under an agreement of sale against his vendor and so question whether respondent is entitled to recover the advance paid under the agreement from the revision- petitioners or not would not depend on the loss suffered by the revision-petitioners due to the breach of contract allegedly committed by the respondent and so I find no grounds to interfere with the order impugned. ( 5 ) HENCE, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.