MURAD Vs. B.R. BABU PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S. No. 131/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC at Sira. Suit was filed on 14.09.2007 based on an agreement of sale dated 06.12.2004, to pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or obstructing or meddling with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property described in the schedule of the plaint. Defendants filed written statement on 30.01.2008 and denied the claim of the plaintiff to the suit property. It was contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Based on the pleadings, issues were raised and after commencement of the trial, on 17.03.2009, the plaintiff filed an I.A. under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC to grant permission to amend the plaint, to convert the suit to one of specific performance of suit agreement of sale dated 06.12.2004. Statement of objections having been filed by the defendants on 20.04.2004, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Judge rejected the application by an order dated 20.06.2012. Assailing the said order, this writ petition has been filed. Sri Harish H.V., learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has committed material irregularity in passing the impugned order. He submitted that there being no change in the cause of action for the suit, there cannot be any change in the nature of the suit and question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, the Trial Court has committed material irregularity in denying the relief to the plaintiff. Learned counsel submitted that there being a misdirection adopted by the learned Trail Judge while deciding the application, the impugned order being irrational, warrants interference.

(2.) LEARNED advocates appearing for the respondents on the other hand supported the view taken by the learned Trial Judge on the application filed for amendment of the plaint and sought dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 had leased the suit property to him and that, on 06.12.2004 the defendants proposed to sell the suit property and upon negotiation they executed an agreement in his favour and agreed to execute valid sale deed within one month, by receiving balance sale consideration amount. It was stated that possession of the suit property remained with him from the date of rent period.