NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTION Vs. U R SIDDESWARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This revision is directed against an order dismissing the application for amendment of the plaint. The suit is one filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of a building from which the petitioner is allegedly evicted by the respondent by force. The suit was filed in the year 1992. According to the petitioner, the respondent subsequently demolished the said building while the suit is pending in violation of an order of status quo granted by the Court. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant application on 13-8-1997 seeking to convert the suit into one for damages. The lower Court dismissed the application observing that in the written statement which was filed in the year 1992 itself, the respondent-defendant pleaded that the building in question was not in existence, that in the application for amendment the petitioner, without mentioning the date of the alleged demolition of the building, vaguely mentioned that the building was recently demolished, that the application for amendment was filed after the trial of the suit commenced and after P.W.I was examined in chief, that P.W.I did not make any whisper about the alleged demolition during his examination, that the alleged demolition gives rise to a distinct cause of action and that the amendment sought for, which introduces a new and distinct cause of action, cannot be allowed as it will cause prejudice to the respondent.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the judgment 0of the Orissa High Court in Gopal Debjibhai vs. Rishal Singh wherein it was held that in a suit for specific performance of contract where the specific performance of contract became impossible due to pendente lite conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to seek damages by amending plaint and the relief of damages could not be held to be barred by time as cause of action arose on pendente lite conduct of the defendant. The principle laid down in that judgment has no application to the instant case since the demolition itself is in dispute and it is pleaded in the written statement filed in 1992 that the building in question was not in existence by that date. Further the affidavit filed in support of the petition for amendment is vague in that the date of the alleged demolition is not mentioned. The application was also filed belatedly after the trial of the suit commenced. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, I do not find any valid grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Court in refusing to allow the amendment.

(3.) The C.R.P. is, therefore, dismissed. This will not, however, preclude the petitioner from filing a suit for damages if so advised and the question of limitation is left open.