SMT. MEERA MOHANTY Vs. GURUPRASAD MOHANTY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the Petitioner. The civil revision arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract.

(2.) IN the plaint it has been averred that the Plaintiff had entered into an agreement with Defendant No. 1 and in pursuance of the contract possession had been delivered. As Defendant No. 1 entered into the disputed properties and started construction, there was a proceeding under Section 114, Code of Criminal Procedure which necessitated filing of the suit. The Plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed their objection to the prayer for amendment and addition of parties. It was submitted that if the amendment is allowed, then the nature and scope of the suit shall be enlarged and the subsequent purchasers who could have been impleaded as parties at the time of filing of the suit having not been so impleaded, the court should not allow such amendment.