RAZIA SIRAJUDDIN Vs. ESKARY BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent filed O. S. No. 2054 of 2005 in the Court of the IV junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner and the second respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Shortly thereafter, it filed I. A. No. 238 of 2006 under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 C. P. C. with a prayer to permit it to amend the plaint. The purport of the amendment was to incorporate the prayer for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 15. 11. 1993. The application was opposed by the petitioner on several grounds, including that of limitation and maintainability. Through its order, dated 08. 03. 2007, the trial Court allowed the I. A. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(2.) SRI S. Niranjan Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the amendment would have the effect of permitting a relief, which is clearly barred by limitation. He submits that the agreement is of the year 1993 and the g. P. A. which accompanied it was cancelled hardly within one year and a relief cannot be claimed more than one and half decades thereafter. His other contention is that the understanding of the petitioner as well as the first respondent was that the agreement, dated 15. 11. 1993, is the one for development and not for sale at all and in that view of the matter, the relief of specific performance is totally impermissible.

(3.) SRI D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the application for amendment is filed within three years from the date on which the petitioner expressed his intention of not honouring the agreement and thereby, it is within limitation. He contends that the trial Court itself has left that question to be dealt with, at proper stage. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the nature of the document or the rights that flow out of it, is a matter, which needs to be dealt with, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, and it cannot be said that the amendment is untenable in law.