CHANDRA KUMAR PHULBADHIYA Vs. JAIDEV NAINANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/petitioner has come up in revision feeling aggrieved by an order of the trial Court directing his application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment in the plaint to be rejected.

(2.) IT appears that the plaintiff has in his favour an agreement dated 12 -3 -1985 to sell the suit property executed by the defendant/non -petitioner. The time limited for performance of the agreement was till 7 - 6 -1985. In the year 1991, the plaintiff apprehending a breach of the agreement by the defendants filed a suit seeking merely a declaration of agreement in his favour and an injunction restraining breach thereof. The relief of specific performance of contract was not prayed for. On 29 -6 - 1992, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the necessary pleadings and relief of specific performance. The trial Court formed an opinion that the proposed amendment not only changed the nature of the suit, but the relief sought to be introduced was barred by time on the date of moving the application and hence the amendment did not deserve to be allowed.

(3.) SUCH a contention on the point of limitation as has been raised before this Court was not raised before the trial Court. Still accepting the correctness of dates stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relief of specific performance had stood barred by time on the date on which the plaintiff moved the application before the Court.