RAMCHANDRA Vs. RAMALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the petitioners/appellants under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience) and Section 22(a) of Specific Relief Act 1963 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Act for the purpose of convenience).

(2.) Sri Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners/appellants had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application and would maintain that in the light of the clear language of Section 22 clause (2) proviso of the Act, the amendment can be permitted. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Babu Lal v. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, AIR 1982 SC 818.

(3.) Per contra, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would maintain that this application is a belated one and hence at this juncture the same cannot be permitted. The Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise in the light of the language of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code as on today, the application for amendment of the plaint cannot be allowed wherein the relief of refund of sale consideration is being prayed for.