The petitioner being the plaintiff in O.S. No.40/1995

on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tiptur, has filed this

writ petition challenging an Order dated 03.07.2010 by

which applications in I.A. Nos.4 and 5 filed by him under

Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for

short, ‘the CPC’) and under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC

were rejected.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

A suit in O.S. No.40/1995 was filed for

recovery of a sum of Rs.88,200/-. It was claimed that the

defendants had agreed to sell the land bearing Sy. No.49/2

5

of Honnavalli village and hobli, Tiptur, measuring 02 acres

12 guntas for a sum of Rs.1,89,000/- in terms of an

agreement dated 28.04.1994. The plaintiff claims that he

had paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- as part of the sale

consideration. The plaintiff claims that the defendants

unduly delayed the conclusion of the sale transaction and

did not hand over possession of the suit schedule property.

He claimed that the defendants were liable to refund a

sum of Rs.70,000/- along with interest at 2% per month

from 28.04.1994 till the date of filing the suit and hence,

filed a suit for recovery of Rs.88,200/-.

4.

The suit was contested by the defendants, who

denied the execution of the agreement dated 28.04.1994.

They also denied the receipt of a sum of Rs.70,000/- as

part of the alleged sale consideration.

5.

Based on these rival contentions, the Trial

Court framed issues and the suit was set down for trial.

The plaintiff did not adduce his evidence, but filed an

application (I.A. No.5) under Order I Rule 10(2) read with

6

Section 151 of the CPC to implead a person named Mr.

Marulappa as defendant, who had allegedly purchased

portion of the land bearing Sy. No.49/2 measuring about

01 acre 06 guntas in terms of a sale deed dated

15.12.1994. Contemporaneously, he filed an application

(I.A.No.4) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sections 94(e)

and 151 of the CPC to lay foundation to claim relief of

specific performance of an agreement of sale dated

28.04.1994 in the plaint. These applications were

contested by the defendants. The Trial Court in terms of

the Order dated 03.07.2010, rejected both the applications

holding that the amendment if allowed would change the

nature of the suit as well as the cause of action.

6.

Being aggrieved by the said Order, the present

writ petition is filed.

7.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff / petitioner

submitted that an application for amendment of plaint to

plead the relief of specific performance was though filed

beyond the period of limitation, yet the Trial Court could

7

not have rejected such an application and ought to have

allowed the application with effect from the date of its

filing. He also contended that the proposed defendant

being a purchaser of a portion of the suit property was

liable to be brought on record for passing an effective

decree of specific performance.

8.

This, however, is countered by the learned

counsel for the defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(d) / respondent

Nos.2(a) to 2(d) who contended that the suit was originally

filed for recovery of money and long after the defendants

denied the alleged execution of the agreement, an

application was filed on 11.10.2006 to amend the plaint as

well as to implead a subsequent purchaser of portion of

the suit property. She submitted that allowing applications

in I.A. Nos.4 and 5 would revive a cause of action, which

has long expired and therefore, this Court should not

entertain such a request.

8

9.

I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

for respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d).

10.

The plaintiff who alleged that an agreement of

sale was executed on 28.04.1994 had the option of either

suing for specific performance or for recovery of money.

The plaintiff chose to sue for recovery of money

contending that the defendants had agreed to repay the

earnest money with interest at 2% per mont