TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (11) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, praying the Court to permit them to amend the plaint and the substance of the amendment was that the suit schedule property was acquired by the Government during the pendency of the suit and that OP No. 65 of 1988 is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram and that the said OP was registered on a reference made to the same Court under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the compensation amount was deposited in the said Court and hence the amendment is prayed for paying the relief of compensation in lieu of or in addition to the relief of specific performance prayed for in the suit. 3. Respondents filed a counter and had opposed the said application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Section 40 of the Act and had submitted that the intention of the Legislature in introducing these provisions may have to, be borne in mind while deciding amendment applications especially where the main reliefs prayed for are covered by either Section 21 or Section 40 of the said Act. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to a decision in Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, AIR 1992 SC 1604. 6. Per contra, Sri V. Ch. Naidu, the learned Counsel representing the respondents opposed the petition on the ground that this is a belated application thought of at the fag end of the proceedings and the same cannot be allowed. The learned Counsel also had further maintained that as the main dispute relating to the apportion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order VI of the First Schedule as omitted or, as the case may be, inserted or substituted by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) and by Section 7 of this Act shall not apply to in respect of any pleading filed before the commencement of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) and Section 7 of this Act. 10. In view of the same, it is contended that the ground of delay cannot be made as a ground applying the proviso, which had been introduced in the present provision. It is pertinent to note that Sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the Act is clear and explicit and the said provision reads as hereunder: "21(5) No compensation shall be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the proceeding. That is a claim for compensation falling under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the amendment is one under the proviso to Sub-section (5). But different and less liberal standards apply if what is sought by the amendment is the conversion of a suit for specific performance into one for damages for breach of contract in which case Section 73 of the Contract Act is invoked. This amendment is under the discipline of Rule 17, Order 6, CPC. The fact that Sub-section (4), in turn, invokes Section 73 of the Contract Act for the principles of quantification and assessment of compensation does not obliterate this distinction." 13. While dealing with Section 40(2) proviso of the Act in a decision in Jagdish v. Har ....