Smt. Rajani Kumari v. Heeran Kumar Aditya
Case brief
What is this about?
In a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Single Judge modified the lower court's order to limit the prayer for refund of earnest money to only those defendants who actually received the amount, dismissing the claim against the mortgagee who received no funds.
What did the court decide?
The petition is disposed of with a modification permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to claim refund only against defendants who received the earnest money.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.682 OF 2018
ORDER :
This revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.12.2017 in I.A.No.1989 of 2017 in O.S.No.104 of 2012 passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter, referred to as “C.P.C.”) was allowed.
The revision petitioner is the respondent No.3 in the said I.A.No.1989 of 2017. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the main suit and they filed the suit for specific performance initially for the primary relief of specific performance and the petitioner herein was impleaded as defendant No.3 being the mortgagee. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. read with Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act seeking amendment of the plaint for refund of advance amount paid, but the Court while allowing the petition permitted the petitioners therein to amend the relief as mentioned in the petition, where the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs claimed alternative relief of refund of advance amount against all the three defendants though the petitioner/defendant No.3 did not receive any amount. Therefore, at best the defendant Nos.1 and 2, vendors of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are liable to refund the amount as the petitioner/defendant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount. Therefore, the amendment is limited only to claim relief against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein/defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court in the suit.
MSM,J CRP_682_2018
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court's order under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowing amendment to claim refund against a non-receiving defendant was legally sustainable.
Whether the petitioners should be permitted to amend the plaint to redirect the refund claim only against the vendors who received the amount.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Respondent No.3 (Petitioner)
- respondent
Respondents No.1 and 2
- respondent
Defendants No.1 and 2 (Respondents No.1 and 2)
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRP/682/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court