PADMAVATI DEVELOPERS Vs. AZIM KASAM MANSOORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This chamber summons is taken out for leave to amend the plaint. The suit filed is for specific performance. According to plaintiff, the mandatory averment as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform their obligations under the contract has been missed out and if the amendment is not permitted, the suit itself may get dismissed.

(2.) This is a pre-trial amendment. Under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 an averment that plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform its obligation under the contract is mandatory. It is settled law that if such an averment is absent, then it would amount to failure to disclose the cause of action and it would entitle the Court to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, refusal to allow the amendment would deprive plaintiff of a valuable right which had accrued to him.

(3.) Since this is a pre-trial amendment, I am inclined to allow this chamber summons. The chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and disposed accordingly. The schedule for the proposed amendment is the schedule annexed to the further affidavit dated 29th August 2017 filed by one Anant Rane, Partner of the plaintiff.