Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Kandimalla Sankara Subba Rao, S/o. Veera Raghavaiah – Appellant
Versus
Kommineni Vara Lakshmi, W/o. G. Siddartha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. agreement of sale and payment details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent's application for amendment (Para 4) |
| 3. trial court's examination of limitation (Para 5) |
| 4. arguments from both parties regarding the amendment (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's ruling on amendment's impact on suit nature (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. final decision on the revision petition (Para 11) |
Order :
R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
The respondent herein had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner herein, dated 11.05.2021, to sell the property belonging to the respondent to the petitioner at a rate of Rs.13,25,000/- per cent. The respondent is said to have paid an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the petitioner on 11.05.2021 itself.
2. Subsequently, the respondent filed O.S.No.33 of 2022 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, contending that the respondent had come to know, that the petitioner had mortgaged the property in the year 2017 itself, to the Punjab National Bank, Guntur Branch and that the bank officials had conducted an E-auction under which the suit schedule property had been sold away to the successful bidder. The respondent, further contending that she would be entitled for a
An amendment changing the nature of a suit from recovery of money to specific performance is impermissible when the responding party has previously sought a refund, indicating they were not ready to ....
The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings should be liberally granted to serve justice, particularly when the cause of action arises from recent developments, like the dismissal of a related ci....
Plaintiff's delay and failure to prove readiness and willingness justifies denying specific performance relief.
Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act permits amendments to include claims for refund of earnest money at any stage, overriding limitations in the CPC.
The court determined that applications under Order VII Rule 11 must allow parties to present evidence at trial, as disputed factual matters cannot be resolved at this stage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
