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>Court rejects amendment for specific performance claim due to lack of diligence and limitation bar</h1> <h3>Walchandnagar Industries Limited, Mr. G.S. Agrawal. Versus Indraprastha Developers, M.M. Shah Consultants Limited, Dr. D.Y. Patil, Shri B.G. Kolse Patil,</h3> Walchandnagar Industries Limited, Mr. G.S. Agrawal. Versus Indraprastha Developers, M.M. Shah Consultants Limited, Dr. D.Y. Patil, Shri B.G. Kolse Patil, ... Issues Involved:1. Amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Due diligence and bona fides in filing the amendment application.3. Change in the nature and cause of action of the suit.4. Limitation for filing the suit for specific performance of contract.Summary:1. Amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code:The writ petition challenges the order allowing the plaintiffs' application for amendment of the plaint to include a relief of specific performance of contract and possession of the suit property. The Trial Court initially allowed the amendment, but the High Court directed reconsideration to determine if the plaintiffs satisfied the 'due diligence' test and whether the amendment changed the nature of the suit or was barred by limitation.2. Due diligence and bona fides in filing the amendment application:The Trial Court's finding that due diligence was not a concern was erroneous. The plaintiffs failed to establish that the delay in filing the amendment application was beyond their control and diligence. The proposed amendment introduced events from 1995-96 and 1998-99, which were known to the plaintiffs, indicating a lack of due diligence.3. Change in the nature and cause of action of the suit:The original suit was for a declaration of a concluded conditional contract and a permanent injunction. The proposed amendment sought to convert the suit into one for specific performance of contract and possession, fundamentally changing the nature and cause of action. The amendment was not necessary to decide the real controversy and would have altered the basic structure of the suit.4. Limitation for filing the suit for specific performance of contract:The suit for specific performance of contract was barred by limitation as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The cause of action for the original suit arose in March 2001, and the amendment application was filed in February 2011, well beyond the three-year limitation period. The proposed amendment did not contain material facts to bring the suit within the limitation period.Conclusion:The writ petition is allowed, and the order allowing the amendment of the plaint is quashed and set aside. The application for amendment is rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
