ORDER :

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against rejection of I.A.No.7 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.398/2008 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara.

2. The petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in O.S.No.398/2008 initially filed for judgment and decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Subsequently by way of amendment to the plaint, the plaintiff included the prayer to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) from dispossession of the suit schedule property by the defendants or anybody claiming under them. When the matter stood at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.7 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to include paragraphs 10A to 10C, to add regarding cause of action after paragraph 11 and also to add the following prayer as prayer-1:

“Wherefore, the plaintiff prays this Hon’ble Court to pass a decree of specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 16-12-1991, directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration and by delivering all the original documents. In the event of failure on the part of the defendants to do so, for the Sale Deed to be executed and registered in respect of suit schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff, through the process of this Hon’ble Court.”

In the affidavit filed in support of the application it is stated that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff was always been ready and willing to complete the transaction. Since there were certain internal misunderstandings/disputes amongst the defendants and since they were not able to hand over the original documents for inspection, the execution of the sale deed was being postponed by the defendants. Further it is stated that defendant No.3 during the pendency of the suit along with her husband executed sale deeds in favour of the third parties. As the said events have occurred during the pendency of the suit, the amendment could not be sought earlier. The plaintiff also stated that the amendment sought for is based on the plaint averments already made and subsequent developments with respect to the schedule property during the pendency of the suit and stated that it does not constitute a new case. Moreover it is stated that the amendment sought is absolutely necessary for the proper and final adjudication of all the issues involved in the suit between the parties. The amendment sought is based on the continuing cause of action since the refusal to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants is demonstrated by the execution of the two sale deeds dated 30-08-2016 in favour of third parties.

3. The respondents/defendants filed detailed objections to the application for amendment contending that the application is highly belated and filed with the sole intention of taking away the admissions made in the plaint. It is stated that when there is a direction to decide the suit within an outer limit of one year in W.P.No.22773/2016 and when the matter is posted for plaintiffs’ evidence, the plaintiff has filed the application only to drag on the proceedings. It is also contended that the proposed amendment would change the very nature of the suit and new case is being introduced that too after several years after filing the suit.

4. The suit one filed initially for injunction is converted to declaration of right under Section 53A of Act and now by proposed amendment, the amendment sought is for specific performance of agreement of sale of the year 1991