K RAHEJA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED Vs. ALLIANCE MINISTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners admittedly filed O.S. No. 213/93 (subsequently numbered as O. S. 251 / 87) for relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating, encumbering, selling, disposing of, or in any way dealing with the said property, more particularly described in Scheduled 'A' to the plaint or any portion thereof. In paragraph 13 of the plaint it was stated thus :

(2.) Pursuant to the letter dated April 29, 1987 addressed by the plaintiff, the defendants in their reply dated 4-5-87 rejected the offer of the petitioners. Therein the petitioners themselves have expressly set out that there is concluded contract of sale between the petitioners and the respondents and that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract paying the balance consideration in the terms and conditions of the said letters. In paragraph 28 of the plaint, April 29, 1987 is one of the dates set out to give them cause of action. On November 25, 1994 application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed in I.A. 745 / 94 seeking to amend the plaint for the grant of the relief of specific performance. The averments made in support thereof is that they subsequently, discovered that the Charity Commissioner had granted permission for the sale of the Trust Property and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the decree of specific preformance. That application was dismissed by the trial Court on January 20, 1995 and by the High Court on February 21, 1995 in CRP No. 510 / 95. Thus, this petition for leave.

(3.) Shri Santosh Hegde, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners have not come forward with any new plea. They have set out all the material allegations and their claims in the plaint. What they are seeking for is only a formal relief which, though not originally asked for, the omission does not preclude the petitioners to file the application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking for the amendment of the plaint. The relief is really founded upon the facts set out in the plaint and it is the subsequent knowledge about permission granted by the Charity Commissioner for alienation, which required the amendment. We find that the contention is not tenable.