ISHWAR CHARAN SARANGI Vs. DURGA PRASAD TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD petitioner filed title suit No. 12 of 1995 against opposite party for specific performance of oral agreement for sale. On 25.6.2001 petitioner filed petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for certain amendments in the plaint, which has been rejected by impugned order dated 29.6.2001. Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that defendant agreed to sell the shop in question to him. Now he wanted to substitute that opposite party had agreed to sell the suit shop to his son, Vijay Kumar Sarangi and so, he may be added as co -plaintiff No. 2. In the relief portion plaintiff wanted to add that alternatively a decree for Rs. 22,620.75 paise only together with interest thereon @ 10% per annum from the year 1998 upto the date of realisation may be granted. In case opposite party had agreed to sell the suit shop to Vijay Kumar Sarangi, who was not a minor, then there was no occasion for his father, the plaintiff to file suit for specific performance of alleged agreement on his behalf as sole plaintiff and now the said Vijay Kumar Sarangi could not have been added as co -plaintiff. In the present suit for specific performance of alleged agreement, there was no occasion for asking for a decree for recovery of Rs. 22,620.75 paise with interest. So far as the proposed amendment for correction of date from 5.8.98 to 5.6.98 in paragraph 10 was concerned, the trial Court observed that in view of the fact that in paragraph 12 of the plaint, the correct date 5.6.98 was already written, there was no need to amend the same. In the aforesaid circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed.

(2.) REVISION dismissed.