PRATAP REDDY Vs. M VENKAT REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.P.No. 21161 of 2003 is filed to vacate the interim stay granted in C.M.P.No. 17779 of 2003 in the Civil Revision Petition dated 26-8-2003. At the stage of hearing of the vacate application, both the Counsel had advanced elaborate arguments touching the merits and demerits of the Civil Revision Petition itself and with the consent of both the Counsel the main Revision is being disposed of.

(2.) The present Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by an order made by the Junior Civil Judge Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, dated 6-2-2003 in I.A.No. 315/2002 in O.S. No. 1/1992. The said application was filed by the petitioner /plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "Code" in short, praying the Court to amend the prayer adding the words "defendants 1 to 4" in the place of "defendants 1 and 2". It was specifically stated that it is a suit for specific performanceofcbntractandinjunctionbased on an agreement of sale dated 16-12-1985 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against defendants 1 and 2 and the petitioner/ plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 sold away the property in question under registered sale deed Ex. B-1 dated 4-1-1992 in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and in the light of the same, on advice, the application was moved with a prayer to amend the relief portion. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Tandur as can be seen from the impugned order was mainly carried away by the delay in presenting the application and ultimately dismissed the application observing that the petitioner /plaintiff can file a fresh suit as against the subsequent purchasers - respondents 3 and 4. Assailing the same the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred.

(3.) Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner had submitted that while deciding an application for amendment of pleading, technicalities need not be gone into and the Court may have to look into the substance of the amendment sought. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of the Court to Section 19{b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience and had submitted that in this view of the matter since by way of bona fide mistake as against the subsequent purchasers the relief was not prayed for, to avoid future complications relating to the execution of decree in the event of the suit being decreed ultimately, the amendment application was moved. The learned Counsel also submitted that it is not a case where defendants 3 and 4 are being brought on record at this stage, but it is a case where the said parties already are on record, but by mistake there was an omission in the prayer. The learned Counsel also pointed out the respective pleadings of the parties in this regard and had submitted that in the interest of justice the amendment application may have tobe allowed. The learned Counsel also further contended that as far as the proviso introduced in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code as it stands as on today is concerned, the proviso cannot control the main provision and at any rate inasmuch as it is clear from the facts that it is only a bonafide mistake, the proviso will not be attracted and at any rate the conditions specified in the proviso also are satisfied. The learned Counsel further maintained that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order by the learned Junior Civil Judge while dismissing the application cannot be sustained.