PILLAMMA Vs. P RANGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are THE revision petitioners and THE revision is against THE Order, by which, lower court allowed THE application for amendment of THE plaint under order 6, Rule 17 of THE Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE respondent herein as THE plaintiff, has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30-9-1988 against THE defendants in respect of THE property i.e., 34 guntas performance, in regard to THE decree passed in THE case, THE Supreme Court felt that THE direction given by THE high court was not as such proper. Their lordships held that, if THE subject-matter of THE suit for specific performance ceased to exist during THE pendency of THE suit, THE contract became incapable of performance for no fault of THE plaintiff and THE plaintiff is only entitled to compensation as provided for under Section 21 of THE Specific Relief Act. Pointing out THE difference between THE english law and THE Indian law, at page 1609, THEir lordships observed as follows: