N J SENTHILKUMAR Vs. N B SUBASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.3220 of 2008 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed the above suit for permanent injunction, restraining the respondent herein from dispossessing him except in accordance with law. In the plaint the revision petitioner has stated that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent/defendant for the purchase of the suit property and paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on various occasions, which was part of the sale consideration and the revision petitioner is prepared to pay the balance sale consideration and get the document registered in his favour and he is also ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the revision petitioner also reserved his right to file the suit for specific performance. As the respondent/defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession by refusing to execute sale deed, the plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction.

(3.) The respondent/defendant filed a detailed written statement denying the agreement of sale as alleged by the plaintiff, but admitted the receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff as a loan. The respondent/defendant also admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and also made a counter claim directing the plaintiff to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to him on receipt of Rs.6,77,675/- being the principal with interest payable by him to the plaintiff. Further, issues were framed and the case was posted for trial. At that state, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.20174 of 2008 under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint by adding a relief of specific performance directing the respondent/defendant to execute a sale deed, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and also made necessary particulars in the plaint to be added and that application was contested by the respondent stating that by allowing the amendment, the character of the suit will be changed and there was no agreement of sale between the parties and the respondent/defendant has already made a counter claim for recovery of possession and at the belated stage, the amendment cannot be entertained. The learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, has accepted the contentions of the respondent/defendant and dismissed the application for amendment, holding that by allowing the amendment, the character of suit would be changed and that would also change the cause of action and nature of the suit. The learned Judge also dismissed the application on the ground that the amendment application was filed, when the case was posted for trial and therefore, under Order 6, Rule 17 proviso, the amendment cannot be allowed. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner.