PRAFULLA DAS Vs. ARAKSHITA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed this writ application against the order of the trial Court as confirmed by the revisional Court, rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, Initially, the plaintiff had claimed the following reliefs :

(2.) IN the original plaint itself the petitioner has made averment that the property had been sold to another person (subsequently added as defendant - the present opposite party No. 4) and thus, he was aware that the property had already been sold to present opposite party No. 4 No prayer had been made for specific performance of contract. Even the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff -petitioner submits that at present also there is no prayer for amending the prayer portion seeking specific performance of contract. If that be so, there is hardly any necessity for incorporating the paragraph now sought to be made. Since the original suit is one for the refund of consideration, the averment now sought to be made is not necessary for just decision of the suit.