- (1.) Heard respective counsels for the Plaintiff- Petitioner and the Defendants-Respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and as agreed between the parties, this writ petition is being decided finally at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 23rd August, 2010 (Annexure 3) passed by the Subordinate Judge-XI, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 151 of 1993. Original Title Suit No. 151 of 1993 was instituted for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 7th September, 1990 in respect of the suit property for a total amount of Rs. 4,01,000.00 and earnest money of Rs. 2,70,000.00 was deposited. There was another agreement of sale dated 9th September, 1990 and the Plaintiff-Petitioner instituted a second suit being Title Suit No. 176 of 1993 for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Title Suit No. 176 of 1993 was contested by Supreme Court No. 9 on the ground that he was a minor on the date of execution of the agreement and, therefore, the agreement is not enforceable under the Contract Act and Title Suit No. 176 of 1993 was dismissed on this basis. The Plaintiff-Appellant filed appeal being Title Appeal No. 28 of 2002 which was allowed on the ground that the Pawan Kumar Rathod was major on the date of agreement. Consequent to allowing of the appeal, an amendment application was preferred by the Plaintiff-Petitioner for amending and adding paragraph 12(a) in the plaint. This amendment application was accompanied with a decree passed in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2002. The Court below rejected the amendment application vide Annexure 1 on the ground that second appeal is still pending and the finding had not attained finality. This order refusing amendment is challenged in the instant writ petition.
(3.) Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court is Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. v. K.K. Modi and Ors., 2006 4 SCC 385.;