Decided on August 02,2016

Thomas Aloysious Ranjit Appellant
Isidoro Caetano Martins Respondents


- (1.) Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1,3 & 4 waives service. In this case, notice for final hearing was issued. None appears for the rest of the respondents. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
(2.) The petitioner is the original defendant no.3 in Special Civil Suit No.138/2006/A pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Margao. That is a suit filed by the respondent nos.1 to 6 against the respondent nos.7 & 8 and the petitioner. The respondents/plaintiffs are seeking declaration and restoration of possession in which the petitioner has raised a counter claim seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 6/01/1999. It appears that the petitioner moved an application for amendment (Exhibit D-54) for amending the written statement/counter claim by correcting the date of the agreement as 6/02/1999 in the place of 6/01/1999. The learned Trial Court by order dated 20/12/2012 has rejected the application on the ground that it is hit by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of Civil Procedure Code, as the same was filed, when the defence evidence was going on.
(3.) It appears that the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application styled as a memo (Exhibit 63) stating that the evidence of the petitioner to the effect that the actual date of agreement is 6/02/1999 and the date mentioned as 6/01/1999 is by way of typographical error was, beyond pleadings and, therefore, requesting the Court to strike off the said part from the affidavitin-evidence of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court by order dated 6/07/2015 allowed the said application-Exhibit 63 and the part of the examination-in-chief was struck off.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.