G CHINNA RAMALINGAIAH Vs. PEDDA SUNKANNA GOUD
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-35
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 08,1992

G.CHINNA RAMALINGAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
PEDDA SUNKANNA GOUD Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

A SWARAJYALAKSHML VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL OF INDIA CENSUS [LAWS(APH)-2001-2-26] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is :
"Whether refusal to permit the petitioners to amend the suit one filed initially for permanent injunction to be converted into a suit for specific performance, is proper or not?"

(2.)Petitioners are the plaintiff who filed O.S. 31/87 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alampur. The said suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, who are respondents in this revision petition, from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit schedule property, which the petitioners-plaintiffs claim to have come into possession by virtue of agreements of sale entered into between the parties as per Exs. A-l to A-4. Along with the suit, LA. No. 266/87 was filed seeking ad interim injunction. The trial Court initially granted ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs. Later on, when the respondents-defendants, who entered appearance, filed an elaborate counter inter alia denying the execution of agreements of sale, Exs. A-1 to A-4, the interim injunction was vacated after due enquiry. Aggrieved by the orders vacating the interim injunction, it is stated by the petitioners-plaintiffs that a revision petition has been filed-in the High Court, but no orders have been passed in the revision so far.
(3.)The petitioners-plaintiffs having realised that they lost the advantage, which they gained initially by virtue of ad interim in junction, after the court vacating the interim injunction filed LA. No. 279/91 before the trial Court under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permission to amend the plaint. By virtue of the amendment, the petitioners-plaintiffs sought to convert the suit, which was one filed for permanent injunction, into one for specific performance based on the agreements of sale, Exs. A-l to A-4. The respondents-defend ants filed a detailed counter before the trial Court and opposed the petition for amendment on the ground that the suit initially filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs is one for permanent injunction and if they are permitted to convert the suit into one for specific performance, it would change the entire nature of the suit. The argument on behalf of the respondents-defendants before the trial Court was to the effect that any filing of suit for specific performance is governed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act and the petitioners-plaintiffs having realised that time has run against them have intelligently adopted this device to circumvent the provisions of the Limitation Act. To put in a nutshell, the respondents-defendants objected allowing amendment on the ground that what the petitioners-plaintiffs lost by efflux of time, sought to gain by the proposed amendment and, therefore, they are not entitled for such relief.
;


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