TWILIGHT PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. Vs. SUPRATIK BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against an order whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for amendment of their plaint was rejected. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the suit was initially filed inter alia on the ground that a purported deed of conveyance dated May 27, 2011 be adjudged null and void and be delivered up and cancelled, for a declaration that the plaintiffs have the sole, exclusive and absolute right to cause construction and carry on the project by constructing a multistoried building at the suit premises as per the agreements dated August 2, 1989 and/or October 19, 1994, along with consequential reliefs of injunction etc

(2.) The trial court, while rejecting the amendment application, primarily proceeded on the premise that the petitioners had filed another suit subsequent to the fling of the suit ( the present revision arises from the first suit ), whereby they had sought the relief for a declaration that a valid, binding and subsisting development agreement dated August 2, 1989 was in existence between the plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 1, for specific performance of the development agreement/contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 relating to the property-in-question, for alternative relief of damages and other reliefs. As such, it was reasoned by the trial court, that the prayers sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the current suit were already sub judice in another suit and the plaintiffs could have prayed for analogous trial of all the suits instead of misusing the time and process of court by filing the amendment application. Thus, the trial court thought the amendment application to be frivolous and rejected the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the pendency of the second suit was irrelevant for refusing amendment in the first suit. The amendment, it is argued, was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, since specific performance and the alternative prayer of damages were necessary for a complete adjudication of the real controversy to be determined in the suit.