(1.) THIS application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint.
(2.) THE applicant herein has originally filed the suit for the following reliefs: -
(3.) IT is further case of the applicant/plaintiff that initially the applicant/plaintiff was paying the rent by way of cheque till August -2007 and thereafter, he was paying the rent by way of cash through the above said Vijayakumar, who is a common friend of the applicant and the respondents 1 & 2/defendants 1 & 2. The respondents 1 & 2/defendants 1 & 2 are permanently residing in Canada and the 1st respondent/D1 used to contact the applicant/plaintiff over phone and instruct to give the rent to the said Vijayakumar and upon such instructions, the plaintiff has been paying the rent by way of Cheque as well as cash as requested by the respondents 1 & 2. Since the suit building/property was in a bad condition, when the respondents 1 & 2 came to India in the month of August 2007, the applicant suggested that in the event of the respondents 1 and 2 giving a long lease for a minimum period of 10 years, the applicant was prepared to spend money for the improvement of the suit building and the same was agreed by the respondents 1 & 2 orally. Pursuant to the said oral agreement, the applicant paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in the month of August -2007. Thereafter, in the month of February -2008, the respondents 1 & 2 contacted the applicant over phone and informed that they were willing to sell the suit property to the applicant for a sale consideration of Rs.3,80,00,000/ - and they would execute the sale deed when they come to India. Pursuant to the willingness expressed by the respondents 1 & 2 to sell the suit property, the applicant paid a sum of Rs.25,50,000/ -. That apart, the applicant has also spent a sum of Rs.30 lakhs for improvement of the suit property only on the assurance given by the respondents 1 & 2 to the effect that they would sell the property to him. But, after a long delay, when the respondents 1 & 2 came to India during February -2010, they demanded exaggerated value for the suit property than that of the amount originally agreed between the applicant and the respondents 1 & 2. However, the applicant agreed to increase the price to Rs.4.8 crores, but the respondents 1 & 2 refused to accept the said proposal and further refused to execute the sale deed. The respondents 1 & 2 prepared a Letter of Agreement dated 06.03.2010, wherein the respondents purposely failed to mention the sale consideration agreed by the applicant. Since the respondents have not mentioned the sale consideration, the applicant did not sign the said letter of agreement dated 06.03.2010. While so, the respondents 1 & 2 are now continuously threating the applicant to dispossess him from the suit property without executing the sale deed. On 17.10.2010 the respondents 1 & 2 came to the suit property along with muscle men and threatened the applicant with dire consequences in the event of he fails to vacate the suit premises. Hence, the applicant filed the suit for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.