( 1 ) THESE revision petitions filed by the common petitioner against different respondents are taken up together for disposal as their decision rests on common question of law.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is common plaintiff in O. S. Nos. 126 to 130 of 1995 instituted in the Trial Court against respective respondents for the relief of injunction prohibiting them from alienating the respective items of suit properties or from creating encumbrance with respect thereto in favour of any third party. In the plaints it is averred that each of defendant 1 in the aforesaid suits, had executed the suit agreement for sale in plaintiffs favour in respect of his suit property. The suits are being contested by respective defendant 1 therein. It is an undisputed fact that temporary injunction in plaintiffs favour in each of the suit was also granted by the Trial Court, restraining defendants from effecting any transfer or alienation of the suit properties. Those suits were filed in 1995. Subsequently, in the year 1997, the suit properties were stated to have been, admittedly, acquired by the Government for KIADB (Karnataka industrial Area Development Board) for the formation of Industrial Estate.

( 3 ) THE acquisition of the suit properties made the plaintiff to make his respective applications under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC numbered as LA. V in each of the above suit seeking permission of the Trial Court to carry out necessary amendment of the plaint as under. I. "ll (a) Plaintiff submits that after the filing of the suit, the plaint schedule properties have been subject-matter of acquisition by the KIADB, which the defendants have informed the plaintiff recently. Therefore, plaintiff submits that as the land has been acquired, the plaintiff is left with no alternative than to seek for recovery of the amounts advanced under the original of the sale agreement and also recover liquidated damages under Clause 14 of the agreement. Plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as advance under Clause 5 of the agreement. Plaintiff further submits that as the agreement was with respect to purchase of immoveable property, the plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages". II. To add para 1kb) after para 11 (a):"ll (B) Plaintiff submits that the plaintiff reliably learns that the rate fixed by the acquiring authority per acre is Rs. 6 lakhs and the plaintiff has agreed to purchase 1 acre of land under the agreement. Therefore, since the I defendant has committed default in not complying with the terms of the agreement for nearly three years, the plaintiff has been put to great loss and injury and his valuable right to the property has been lost on account of the breach committed by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to half the compensation amount liable to be received by the defendant and the plaintiff quantifies the liquidated damages at rs. 4 lakhs under Clause 14 of the agreement. Plaintiff further submits that since the acquisition has come after the filing of the suit and on account of the breach committed by the I defendant, the plaintiff, in equity, is entitled to liquidated damages as quantified at 50% of the compensation amount payable to the defendants in the acquisition proceedings. Since the loss incurred by the plaintiff cannot be compensated in terms of money and the said land has been subjected to acquisition, the plaintiff is claiming 50% of the compensation amount as liquidated damages at the rate of Rs. 3 lakhs per acre. Accordingly the plaintiff is claiming a sum of Rs. 9,000/- together with the liquidated damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and the plaintiff is prepared to pay necessary Court fee after the amendment is allowed". To add para 12 (a) after para 12:"12 (A) Plaintiff further submits that the cause of action for recovery of money and liquidated damages arose on the date on which the lands were acquired by KIADB de die in diem". To add prayer (c) after prayer (b):" (C)