T ARJUNAN Vs. JOHN ALBERK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner / plaintiff has laid the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. It is found that the respondents / defendants at the first instance, on account of their failure to file written statement, had been set ex parte. Thereafter, it is found that the respondents / defendants preferred an application to set aside the ex parte order passed against them along with the written statement. In the written statement filed, according to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, it has been averred by the defendants 1 and 2 that they have sold an extent of three cents in the property involved in the subject matter, on 21.05.2012, to one S.R.Rajam, who is, according to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, none other than the servant-maid of the defendants 1 and 2 and who has no independent source of income to purchase the said property and further according to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, the said alienation has been done only with a view to defeat his valuable rights in the suit property and the same is a fraudulent transaction and it would not bind upon him and in such view of the matter, according to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, he has been necessitated to file the application for amendment of the plaint, as regards the above acts of the respondents / defendants, particularly, seeking for declaration that the sale effected by the defendants in favour of S.R.Rajam is null and void and unenforceable under law and the allied facts with reference to the same. It is found that S.R.Rajam had already been impleaded as the third respondent in the suit.

(2.) The above said amendment application preferred by the revision petitioner / plaintiff is resisted by the defendants, contending that the revision petitioner / plaintiff is not entitled to seek for declaration that the sale effected in favour of the third defendant is null and void and unenforceable under law. The revision petitioner / plaintiff, if at all is aggrieved by the above said alienation, should lay only a separate suit and not seek for the relief of amendment in the present suit and if the amendment is entertained, it will affect the defence set out by the defendants and further, it is stated that the revision petitioner / plaintiff has not properly valued the relief sought for by way of the proposed amendment and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, dismissed the application for the amendment preferred by the revision petitioner / plaintiff on the sole ground that if the amendment sought for is entertained, it would amount to damaging the defence available to the defendants. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.