SULOCHNA JIVRAJBHAI ANADKAT Vs. NILAMBEN SHASHIKANT SHETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Special Civil Suit No.145 of 1994 for specific performance of a contract, the petitioner original plaintiff moved an application Exh:295 seeking to bring the events subsequent to the filing of the suit on record of the Trial Court. While the Special Civil Suit No.145 of 1994 was pending in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, another suit came to be instituted against the same defendants, wherein a decree by consent which resulted into alienation of the suit property i.e. property which was subject matter of Special Civil Suit No.145 of 1994 came to be passed.

(2.) SINCE a consent decree was obtained behind the back of the plaintiffpetitioner herein adversely affecting his rights, the application for amendment was necessitated. By such application, the plaintiff sought to insert the averments stating that the decree obtained in the other suit was fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff. Consequential reliefs like compensation for the defendants having misused the process of the Court by inviting a consent decree in the said Special Civil Suit No.31 of 2002, was also prayed for. The application Exh:295 came to be rejected by the Trial Court primarily holding that the grant of such an application will alter the nature of suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel also stated that he would not press any part of the amendment as contained in Para7(A) which will tantamount to seeking a relief in the context of the facts sough to be stated in Para7(A).