S.MANOHARAN Vs. KARUNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order made in I.A. No. 12 of 2012 in A.S. No. 161 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3 Coimbatore, wherein and whereby the said application filed by the respondent herein, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking for amendment of the plaint, was allowed. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 1507 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore against the petitioner herein seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.12.1997. The said suit, after contest, was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.4.2007 by holding that the plaintiff did not take any steps to get the sale deed executed within the time stipulated in the suit agreement. It was also found by the trial Court that the endorsement made in the suit agreement under Ex. A4 dated 10.12.1998 extending the period of agreement is not acceptable as the power of attorney of the plaintiff did not have any such power to make such endorsement and as such the same will not bind the defendant. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the Additional District court, Coimbatore in A.S. No. 161 of 2007. Though the said appeal was originally dismissed for default on 28.10.2010, the same was subsequently restored by an order made in I.A. No. 642 of 2011. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 12 of 2012 on 28.3.2012, praying for amending the plaint to seek an alternative relief of refund of advance money of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The said application was resisted by the petitioner herein by filing a counter.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the alternative relief sought by way of amendment is barred by limitation and therefore the amendment petition is not maintainable. The Court below allowed the application by observing that the amendment of the pleadings can be granted at any stage of the proceedings as per Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore the question of limitation will not arise. However, the Court below while allowing the application, directed payment of Rs. 500/- as cost payable to the petitioner herein. The Court below has passed the said order on 16.2.2012 and thereafter when the matter was again taken up on 27.2.2012, the petition was allowed by recording the fact that the cost of Rs. 500/- was deposited by the respondent herein. Aggrieved against the said order of the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court.

(3.) Ms. P.T. Asha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the alternative relief sought to be introduced by way of amendment is barred by limitation, the Court below has erred in allowing the application. According to the learned counsel, when such alternative relief could not be made even on the date of filing of the suit since such relief was barred by limitation even at that time, the same cannot be introduced by way of amendment that too at the appellate stage. Under the agreement dated 19.12.1997 only one year time limit was given for effecting the sale deed. When the suit was filed in December 2001, the time limit of one year was already over and therefore the relief of specific performance as well as the alternative relief sought to be introduced by way of amendment were barred by limitation. Learned counsel also pointed out that the extension of time granted by the power agent of the defendant was without there being any specific power to that effect and this aspect has also been taken note of by the trial Court. Learned counsel also submitted that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act is not applicable to the present case in view of the fact that the suit has already been dismissed.