RAMASWAMY REDDY Vs. SMT. YELLAMMA OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -plaintiff and the learned counsel for respondents -defendants.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has filed the bare suit for injunction against the respondents -defendants. When suit summons were issued, none of the defendants appeared in the matter and subsequently, they appeared and filed written statement denying execution of the agreement of sale. The learned counsel submitted that, that was the first time it came to the notice of the plaintiff about execution of the agreement of sale. Immediately, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of plaint and sought for specific performance of agreement of sale. The trial Court rejected the application holding that if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of the suit. In this connection, the observation made by the trial Court is not correct. With regard to delay in filing the said application is concerned, the learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court, para No. 8(c) of the application for amendment and submitted that the application was wrongly rejected. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the writ petition be allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court and allowing the application to add the relief column. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents -defendants during the course of the arguments made submission that the application was rejected not only on the ground that the proposed amendment is going to change the nature of the suit but also on the delay in filing the said application. The learned counsel submitted that the date of alleged agreement of sale was dated 17.11.1993 and the application was filed after lapse of nearly 20 years. The said fact was taken note of by the trial Court and even on that ground also, the trial Court has rejected the said application. The reasons adopted by the trial Court in rejecting the application are sound and no illegality has been committed. Hence, requested that the writ petition may be rejected.