The importance of a speaking order and the need for the Trial Court to apply its mind while considering applications for amendment, especially in cases involving subsequent developments after the institution of the suit.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 28/10/2021, passed in O.S.No.304/2016 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No. 304/2016 for the relief of specific performance of contract. In the said suit, respondents appeared and filed written statement. When the case was posted for further evidence of petitioner, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment of plaint. In support of the said application, petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that during the pendency of the instant suit, respondents colluded with each other and filed a suit in O.S.No.306/2019 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru, without making the petitioner as a party. In the said suit, the respondents entered into a compromise by suppressing the execution of registered sale agreement in favour of the petitioner. On coming to know about the compromise decree passed in O.S.NO.306/2019, the petitioner has filed the application seeking to amend the plaint.

The said application was opposed by the respondents stating that the application was filed at a belated stage after the commencement of trial. Hence prayed to reject the application.

The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence this petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons in dismissing the application. He further submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is a cryptic order. He further submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition and direct the Trial Court to reconsider the application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by assigning reasons.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that the Trial Court has not assigned any reasons while passing the impugned order.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract. When the case was posted for further evidence of the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint seeking for additional prayer of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner has contended in the application that during the pendency of the said suit, the respondents having colluded with each other, got filed a suit in O.S.No.306/2019 and entered into a compromise. By virtue of the compromise decree, the right of the petitioner is infringed. In view of the subsequent development that took place after the institution of the suit, the petitioner is intending to bring those subsequent events on record, by way of amendment. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondents that respondents No.14 and 15 are not parties to the agreement. The Trial Court, without assigning any reasons, has proceeded to pass the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is cryptic and it is not a speaking order. The Trial Court has not applied its mind while considering the application for amendment. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

The Trial Court is directed to reconsider the application for amendment filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, after assigning reasons.