SENNIAPPA GOUNDER Vs. RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is brought forth by the defendant in a suit aggrieved over an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, allowing an application for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) After hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the materials available, the Court is of the considered view that there is nothing to interfere in the order of the Court below.

(3.) It was a suit for return of the earnest money filed by the respondent/plaintiff alleging that an agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property was entered into between the parties on 17.9.1987, and since the demand made by the plaintiff was not complied with by the defendant, the owner of the property, there arose a necessity to file a suit for recovery of the earnest with interest. The said suit was interalia contested by the petitioner/defendant that the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief, since he has forfeited the right of return of the money; that he was never willing to perform his part of the contract, and hence, the suit must be dismissed. Pending the suit before the trial commenced, the instant application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint to include the relief of specific performance directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance of the sale consideration.