TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court grants appeal in specific performance suit, permits amendment to plaint</h1> <h3>GAJANAN JAIKISHAN JOSHI Versus PRABHAKAR MOHAN LAL KALWAR</h3> GAJANAN JAIKISHAN JOSHI Versus PRABHAKAR MOHAN LAL KALWAR - 1990 (1) SCC 166 Issues:- Suit maintainability for non-compliance with Specific Relief Act, 1963.- Rejection of application for amendment of plaint.- Principles governing granting or disallowing amendments.- Comparison with previous case law on specific performance suits.Analysis:The judgment in question involves an appeal from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property. The respondent-defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed as per the agreement, leading to the filing of the suit by the appellant. The respondent contended that the suit was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specifically section 16(c. The issue of maintainability was directed to be tried as a preliminary issue. The appellant sought to amend the plaint to include an averment of readiness and willingness to perform, but the application for amendment was rejected by the Additional Civil Judge, a decision upheld by the High Court.The judgment referred to the principles laid down in previous cases regarding granting or disallowing amendments to pleadings. It highlighted that amendments should be allowed if they do not work injustice to the other side and are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. The court emphasized that amendments should be refused only if the other party would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be compensated in costs. The judgment also cited specific instances where amendments may be refused, such as introducing a fresh claim barred by limitation.In analyzing the case law on specific performance suits, the judgment distinguished a previous case where a decree was granted based on an agreement different from the one pleaded by the plaintiff. In that case, the plaintiff had not alleged readiness and willingness to perform the agreement in question, rendering the suit not maintainable. However, in the present case, the appellant sought to rectify an oversight in the pleading by amending the plaint to include the necessary averment, without introducing a fresh cause of action.Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge. The court permitted the appellant to carry out the proposed amendment at their own expense within a specified timeframe. The Trial Court was directed to allow the respondent to file a supplementary written statement, if necessary, and dispose of the case on merits according to law. No costs were awarded for the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
