SATISH CHANDRA
Virendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Daya Nand – Respondent
Satish Chandra, CJ.
1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision. It is directed against an order of the learned Civil Judge dismissing an application for amendment of the plaint.
2. The suit was for specific performance of a contract dated August 23, 1976 for sale of a portion of a house. The suit was filed on August 4, 1979. The application for amendment was instituted by the plaintiff on November 20, 1979. The plaintiff wanted to add in the plaint the plea that the plaintiff is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application. The court held that in view of Sec. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act the plaintiff has to make the requisite averment in the plaint and then to prove by evidence that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In the absence of such an averment in the plaint, the suit cannot succeed. Since valuable right has accrued to the defendant and, in the second place, because the amendment seeks to bring out a fresh cause of action in the plaint which was originally absent, the amendment cannot be allowed.
In the original plaint, it was pleaded that the plainti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.