ARULDOSS Vs. THOBIDOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.149 of 2015 in O.S.No.57 of 2010 dated 16.02.2016 on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional District Judge, Thanjavur.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is plaintiff. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.57 of 2010 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Thanjavur, for specific performance of the alleged sale agreement dated 09.04.2009 executed by the defendant or alternatively for refund the advance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum. It is alleged by the respondent in the plaint that the petitioner is the owner of the property situated in Survey No.95A/9C to an extent of 44 2/3 cents and the petitioner agreed to sell the property to the respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,13,250/- and received the advance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- on executing a sale agreement dated 09.04.2009 and one year period was fixed in the agreement for execution of sale deed. When the petitioner refused to adhere to the terms of agreement, the respondent filed the above suit. The petitioner would contend that the respondent is a professional money lender and he has obtained signatures in a unfilled stamp papers, cheques and pro-notes and by fabricating the same, the alleged sale agreement has been prepared and the present suit has been filed.

(3.) According to the petitioner, after filing written statement on 19.04.2013, the respondent filed reply statement on 21.10.2013 and thereafter, necessary issues were framed and trial was conducted. After closing the plaintiff side evidence, the case was posted for cross examination of DW1. After the examination of DW1, the plaintiff has filed the present amendment application to include the relief of recovery of possession by taking contrary stand in the original plaint that except the house standing in the suit property, surrounding vacant site has been handed over to him on the date of agreement itself and therefore, it is necessary to amend the plaint by including the relief of possession of the house standing in the suit property. According to the petitioner, the amendment application has been filed without satisfying Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, but the learned Judge without considering the said provision, allowed the amendment application, against which, the present revision petition has been filed.