S VIPRAMAMBA Vs. MUSULUZU ANASUYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition seeking amendment of the plaint in respect of the door number of the building in respect of which a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale bf that building was filed by the revision petitioners, was dismissed by the order under revision on the ground that the prayer sought in the amendment petition is contrary to the documents relied on by the revision petitioners.

(2.) In the agreement of sale relied on by the revision petitioners the door number is mentioned as 13.1-176/100. Revision petitioners sought leave to amend that number as 1-3.176/100. It is relevant to mention that the agreement of sale also mentions the boundaries of the property agreed to be sold thereunder, besides the door number.

(3.) The order under revision is unsustainable on two grounds. . Firstly, because it is not necessary for the Court to go into merits of the amendment sought while considering a petition for amendment, when the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action. Revision petitioners who are seeking the amendment of door number of the building mentioned in the plaint and plaint schedule, would be doing so at their own risk and peril. Whether revision petitioners can be granted the relief of specific performance in respect of the property bearing door number mentioned in the plaint as propored to be amended or not can and should be decided only at the time of disposal of the suit by the trial court, but not at the stage of deciding the amendment petitionbecome the Court while deciding a petition for amendment of plaint need not go into the truth or otherwise of the proposed amendment. It also need not decide whether on the basis of the proposed amendment the party seeking amendment is likely to succeed in the case. Secondly, because as held in Sheodhyan Singh Vs. Musammat Sanichara Kuer, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1879. where boundaries and plot numbers are mentioned in a document mistake in the plot number has to be treated as a misdescription and does not affect the identity of the property. The said decision was referred to and followed in P.Udayani Devi Vs. V.V.Rajeshwara Prasad Rao, 1995 2 APLJ 5 (SC). Therefore, it is clear that boundaries prevail over the door number mentioned in a document.