BANDANA MANGARAJ Vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF CUTTACKBHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 89 of 2011 pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge (L.R.), Bhubaneswar. In the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, she questions the correctness of order dtd. 20/11/2023 passed by the Court below in rejecting her prayer for amendment of the plaint in so far as the same relates to the relief of grant of compensation for breach of contract in terms of Sec. 21 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the suit property was originally recorded in the name of defendant No.1, who intended to sell the same. The plaintiff having agreed to purchase the land, an agreement for sale was executed between them on 2/3/2010 for a consideration of Rs.3,50,00,000.00. The plaintiff paid Rs.25,00,000.00 as part consideration and agreed to pay the remaining Rs.3,25,00,000.00 within three months. The sale deed was to be executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff upon receiving full consideration by 5/6/2010. The plaintiff was however, informed that one Basanti Maharana had filed a Civil Suit being C.S. No.435 of 2010 involving the self-same property and accordingly she was requested to wait till disposal of the suit. The plaintiff also sought for intervention in the aforementioned suit and always expressed her readiness to fulfill her part of the contract. The defendant No.1 avoided to receive the balance consideration citing pendency of the other suit as a reason. Ultimately, on 17/7/2010, the plaintiff received a letter from defendant No.1 stating that the agreement had lost its force due to non-payment of balance consideration amount within the stipulated period and hence no sale deed could be executed. The other suit filed by Basanti Maharana was withdrawn on 9/8/2010 and on the same day, the plaintiff's application for intervention therein was also rejected. The plaintiff further came to know that defendant No.1 had clandestinely sold the land to defendant No.2 and that the other suit was a collusive one. Since clause-5 of the agreement barred any kind of transfer of the scheduled property, the plaintiff claims that the sale deed so executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is an outcome of fraud and hence void. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

(3.) During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Sec. 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act to include the relief seeking compensation. It is to be noted that some other amendments were proposed. The Court below, in the order impugned allowed only a part of the amendment but rejected the main amendment sought for to include the claim for compensation mainly on the ground that the same was not based on facts existing at the time of alleged breach of contract, the grounds for which could not be established by the plaintiff. Being thus aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court.