The court emphasized the necessity of demonstrating due diligence for amendments in pleadings, particularly after trial commencement, and clarified that subsequent purchasers can be subject to specific performance decrees without necessitating cancellation of prior deeds.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14(3) - Amendment of pleadings - The trial court allowed the plaintiff's applications to amend the plaint and mark additional documents as exhibits, which were contested by the defendants on grounds of delay and lack of diligence. The court emphasized the necessity for timely amendments and the consequences of failing to show due diligence. (Paras 9, 15, 19)

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 19(b) - Subsequent purchasers - The court reiterated that subsequent purchasers can be subjected to a decree of specific performance unless they are bona fide purchasers without notice of the original contract, negating the necessity for cancellation of subsequent sale deeds. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale regarding agricultural land, alleging that sale deeds executed in favor of defendants 3 to 5 were fraudulent and not binding on him. The suit was at the argument stage when the plaintiff sought amendments to the plaint and to mark additional documents as exhibits.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in allowing the amendment applications at a late stage without sufficient justification from the plaintiff regarding the delay in filing. The knowledge of the existence of the sale deeds was established prior to the trial. (Paras 19, 20)

Issues: The main issues included the appropriateness of allowing amendments at a late stage and whether the plaintiff had shown due diligence in seeking these amendments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking amendments before the trial commenced, and allowing such amendments at this stage would undermine the procedural integrity of the trial. (Paras 15, 16)

Result: Civil Revision Petitions allowed, setting aside the orders allowing amendments. (Para 20)

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.2766 of 2024 is filed by the revision petitioners - respondents 3 and 5 - defendants 3 and 5 aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.343 of 2024 in O.S.No.111 of 2007 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under SCs / STs (POA) Act - cum - III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

2. I.A.No.343 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint seeking consequential amendment of declaration of sale deeds executed in favor of defendants 3 to 5 as null and void and not binding on him. The said I.A. was allowed by the learned trial Judge vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by which, the present CRP was filed.

3. C.R.P.No.2768 of 2024 is filed by the revision petitioners - respondents 3 and 5 - defendants 3 and 5 aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.344 of 2024 in O.S.No.111 of 2007 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under SCs / STs (POA) Act - cum - III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

4. I.A.No.344 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to re-open the suit for filing amendment petition. The same was allowed vide impugned order dated 18.06.2024.

5. C.R.P.No.2747 of 2024 is filed by the revision petitioners - respondents 3 and 5 - defendants 3 and 5 aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.342 of 2024 in O.S.No.111 of 2007 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under SCs / STs (POA) Act - cum - III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

6. I.A.No.342 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC to receive the certified copies of the sale deeds bearing document Nos.1190 of 2006 dated 02.02.2006 and 1617 of 2017 dated 28.03.2017, in the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the same as exhibits. The same was allowed vide the impugned order dated 18.06.2024.

7. All the above I.A.s are filed by the plaintiff contending that he filed the suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale dated 07.11.2005 in respect of agricultural land in Survey Nos.112/RU and 112/RUU, total admeasuring Ac.7-30 guntas situated at Hathnoora Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District. The suit was at the stage of arguments. Originally, the suit was filed against the respondents 1 and 2 - defendants 1 and 2. Subsequently after filing written statement by respondent No.1, respondents 3 and 4 were impleaded vide order dated 14.08.2019 in I.A.No.50 of 2019. Accordingly, the plaint was amended and defendants 3 and 4 were added. The defendants 3 and 4 were the purchasers of the suit schedule property from the respondents 1 and 2 - defendants 1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 02.02.2006 bearing document No.1190 of 2006. The said sale deed was fraudulently executed by respondents 1 and 2 in favor of respondents 3 and 4 during subsistence of agreement of sale dated 07.11.2005 executed in his favor by respondents 1 and 2. As such, the sale deed was liable to be declared as null and void and not binding upon him, as he was not a party to the said document. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 fraudulently alienated an extent of Ac.3-35 guntas of land in favor of respondent No.5 - defendant No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 20.03.2017 vide document No.1617 of 2017 during the pendency of the suit. On his application, the subsequent purchaser namely defendant No.5 was impleaded in the suit vide orders in I.A.No.189 of 2019. The said sale deed was fraudulently executed by respondents - defendants in collusion with each other with the sole object to create multiplicity of litigation and to cause hardship and loss to the plaintiff. The said document was not binding upon the plaintiff, as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23326

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANAG.RADHA RANI, JK.A. REDDY – AppellantVersusNAIKOTI NARSIMULU – RespondentCRP/2747/2024

The court emphasized the necessity of demonstrating due diligence for amendments in pleadings, particularly after trial commencement, and clarified that subsequent purchasers can be subject to specific performance decrees without necessitating cancellation of prior deeds.

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G.RADHA RANI, J
K.A. REDDY – Appellant
Versus
NAIKOTI NARSIMULU – Respondent
CRP/2747/2024