Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against the orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which dismissed a civil revision application and declined to recall that order. The dispute arose from an agreement to sell property dated December 21, 1989, where the respondent agreed to sell certain property to the appellant for a specified consideration. The appellant initially filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, which was later amended to seek specific performance of the agreement. The trial court allowed the amendment but required the appellant to include a statement of readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The appellant complied but inadvertently omitted this statement in the amended plaint. The respondent challenged the amendment, claiming it was beyond the limitation period for specific performance. The High Court upheld this challenge, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court analyzed the trial court's discretion in allowing amendments and referenced precedents that emphasized the necessity of amendments for determining real issues without causing injustice to the other party. The Court concluded that the second amendment did not introduce a new cause of action and was permissible. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and restored the trial court's decision, allowing the appeal with no costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Permissibility of Second Amendment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 6 Rule 17 - The trial court was justified in allowing the second amendment to the plaint to introduce a missing averment regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as it did not introduce a fresh cause of action and was necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. The High Court's decision to allow the revision petition against this amendment was erroneous. Held that the suit was filed within the limitation period and the amendment was merely rectifying an inadvertent omission (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second amendment to the plaint introducing para 5A was permissible despite the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders dated 30.10.2002 and 22.8.2003, and restored the trial court's order dated 9.2.1995, with no orders as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- amendment of plaint
- limitation period
- inadvertent omission
- trial court's discretion
