Dismissed

N.Dhanalakshmi v. N.Yethirajulu Naidu (died)

Telangana HC21 Jul 2011CRP/1840/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the application challenging the lower court's refusal to permit an amendment to the plaint. The court held that the petitioner failed to explain why the relief was not claimed earlier given multiple prior amendments, though alternative refund relief was available.

What did the court decide?

The C.R.P. was dismissed with no costs, affirming the lower court's order rejecting the amendment of plaint.

N.Dhanalakshmi Vs N.Yethirajulu Naidu (died) — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

C.R.P. No. 1840 of 2011

¶3

O r d e r:

¶4

This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 13 of 2011 in O.S. No. 1122 of 2002, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, seeking to amend the plaint by adding the relief as para 12(b) “to create charge over the suit property for realization of the advance amount together with interest in the event of ordering of refund of the advance sale consideration”, and to carry out the amendment of the plaint.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.

¶6

The contention of the petitioner that by oversight he could not seek the relief now sought by way of amendment of the plaint cannot be accepted. The suit is one for specific performance of contract, basing on an agreement of sale dated 19.12.2001. As can be seen from the order under revision, the suit is of the year 2002. At the instance of the petitioner, the plaint was amended earlier on three occasions. The petitioner except stating that by oversight he could not seek the relief now sought, did not explain why he could not claim this relief earlier, even though at his instance, the plaint was amended on three occasions.

¶7

Be that as it may, since in the event alternative relief of refund of the amount paid by the petitioner to the respondents is granted, the same can be recovered by the petitioner by filing E.P., the Court below felt that there is no need to permit the petitioner to amend the relief now sought, particularly when it is the case of respondent No.8 that he purchased the suit schedule property, much before the genesis of the present litigation, and no exception can be taken thereto.

¶8

For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶9

_________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶10

Dated: 21^st July, 2011 KSR

N.Dhanalakshmi v. N.Yethirajulu Naidu (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Dhanalakshmi v. N.Yethirajulu Naidu (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gollapalle Madhusudana Reddy, Vs K.Krishna Murthy

Kanamaluri Krishnamurthy, Vs Y.Sivaiah

N.Venkateswara Rao Vs Sri P.Venkata Rami Reddy

Budugu Chirrappa Vs The District Collector, Chittoor District

M. Mutyala Rao Vs Sri Suresh Kumar

Karamala Govindamma, Vs T. Rajamma