DEVENDRAPPA Vs. RAMAPPA SANKAPPA HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 29-6-1994 passed by the learned Munsiff, Ramdurg, allowing LA. III moved by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 234 of 1990. By the amendment, the plaintiff sought to remove a technical defect in the plaint i. e. , lack of averment which is required to be made under Section 16 (c) of Specific relief Act read with explanation thereof namely there was no specific averment in expressed terms that the plaintiff is and has always been ready to perform his part of contract. This allegation being wanted and as it was not there in expressed terms, the plaintiff moved the application for amendment and the Court below after considering the matter, allowed the amendment. So defendants felt aggrieved and have come up in revision.

(2.) IT has been contended before me by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the Court below should not have allowed the amendment as on the date if it would have been filed in amended form, suit would have been barred by limitation and the plaintiff would not have been entitled to the decree for specific performance of contract. This suit was filed no doubt within three years from the date of agreement, learned Counsel contended, but the amendment application had been moved much beyond the expiry of period of limitation on 24-9-1993. I earned Counsel contended that the Court below acted illegally or to say committed jurisdictional error in allowing the amendment.

(3.) THESE contentions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner have been hotly contested by Smt. Sharada holding brief for Sri M. Ram bhat, learned Counsel for the opposite party. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that in the plaint in paragraph 1 it has been averred that the plaintiff had already paid a sum of Rs. 9,050/- on the date of agreement and thereafter the plaintiff approached the defendants with the balance of consideration namely Rs. 4,450/ -. But the defendants continued to avoid. Therefore, the need for the suit has arisen. Learned Counsel contended that the plaintiff filed i, A. for amendment in which it has clearly been alleged that the plaintiff being always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and to bring out the plaint in accordance with the terms and requirements of section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act and to complete the cause of action, the amendment had been sought only in order to finally get determined the dispute between the parties, so the amendment was necessary.