RAM SINGHASAN CHOUBEY Vs. SUDAMA PRASAD SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the petitioners here. They are aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsif dated the 6th Aug. 1981, by which an amendment in the plaint sought by the plaintiff-opposite party has been allowed.

(2.) The opposite party filed a title suit, being Title Suit No. 102 of 1971 in the Court of the Munsif IV, Chapra, for a decree for specific performance of contract in his favour and for a declaration that the sale deed dated 16-10-1969 in favour of defendants 3 to 5 is illegal, void and ineffective. The suit after filing of the written, statement and framing of the issues was taken up for hearing, evidence being led by both the sides, after the close of which arguments were heard. During the course of argument the petitioners' counsel submitted that there has been violation of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, and, therefore, the suit is fit to be dismissed. According to petitioners' counsel, the plaintiff-opposite party has failed to aver and prove that he was all along ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. On this submission being made an application was filed for amendment of the plaint which was allowed by the impugned order. The amendment sought for in paragraph 10 of the plaint is as follows :-- ..(Verunacular Matter Omitted)..

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that by the allowing of this amendment they have been deprived of a valuable right as the suit itself is liable to fail without this amendment and this amendment really creates a right that is barred by limitation. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party no new case is being added, and the amendment sought is purely technical in nature which fact has been stated by P. W. 1 in his evidence in paragraph 4 of his deposition at the very beginning and on this point there was no cross-examination on behalf of the defendants-petitioners.