LAWS(APH)-2011-8-111

POTHURAJU NARASAIAH Vs. SUROJU NAGAMANI

Decided On August 05, 2011
POTHURAJU NARASAIAH Appellant
V/S
SUROJU NAGAMANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is preferred by the 1st Defendant in the Suit, calling in question the orders passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Khamman in I.A. No. 111 of 2010 filed in O.S. No. 15 of 2007, instituted by the Plaintiffs -Respondents 1 and 2 herein.

(2.) O.S. No. 15 of 2007 was instituted seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23-09-2006 entered into by and between these parties. Subsequent to the institution of the Suit, Defendants 2 to 6 got imploded therein resisting the intended sale by the 1st Defendant on the ground that it is a joint family property. I.A. No. 111 of 2010 was moved hence, seeking amendment of the plaint for introduction of an alternative relief for repayment of the advance sale price of Rs. 3,60,000/- received by the Petitioner herein together with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of receipt of the said money till the date of repayment. The said I.A., was resisted on variety of grounds including that the claim for refund of the advance sale consideration amount was barred by limitation. Finding that the nature of amendment sought for, does not result in altering the nature of the cause in the Suit itself and since the relief sought for is only an alternative relief, the learned I Additional District Judge, Khamman, by his order dated 03-02-2011 allowed the said amendment application.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri J.P. Srikanth would strenuously contend that the alternative relief of refund of Rs. 3,60,000/- together with interest @ 12% thereon is sought for more than three years after the Suit is filed, i.e., on 19-04-2007, therefore, it is clearly barred by limitation. Further, the relief of refund is very much available to the Plaintiffs to seek from the very inception. Having, thus, not prayed for such a relief at the inception, the Application ought to have been dismissed. Further, the alternative relief now prayed for will cause prejudice to the Petitioner - 1st Defendant in the Suit.