DATED

21.11.2016 AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RANEBENNUR, IN O.S.NO.114/2011, IN

SO FOR IT RELATES TO REJECTING THE AMENDMENT AND

FURTHER DIRECT THE BELOW TO ALLOW THE I.A.NO.7 FILED

BY THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

B- GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.7,02,241/- and this claim was based on an agreement

of sale said to have been entered into between the

petitioner and respondents herein on 24.10.2009.

2. The plaintiff contended that an agreement of sale

had been entered into between the plaintiff and the

defendants, whereby the defendants had agreed to sell the

suit property for consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- and they

had already handed over the possession of the suit

property. It was stated that the plaintiff also paid a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- as earnest money under the agreement of

sale dated 24.10.2009 to the defendants.

- 3 -

3. The plaintiff specifically contended that on a legal

notice being issued calling upon the defendants to abide

the terms of the contract, a reply on 08.06.2011 was

given by the defendants, whereby, the defendants denied

the execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of the

earnest money. It was contended that in the reply the

defendants put forth plea that due to the cordial

relationship with the plaintiff, they had put their signatures

on certain blank documents and on blank stamp papers so

as to facilitate changes in the revenue records.

4. It was also stated that the defendants had entered

into an agreement of sale with one Ramakrishna Jambagi

and had entered a registered agreement of sale in his

favour on 27.05.2011. It was stated that since the

defendants had repudiated the agreement of sale and on

looking into their conduct and attitude, the plaintiff was

not willing to pursue the matter regarding the specific

performance of sale of agreement and to get the Sale

Deed from the defendants and the plaintiff had therefore

- 4 -

decided to recover the earnest money which he had paid

under the agreement of sale along with interest.

5. In fact, the specific portion of the plaint reads as

follows:

“By sending the reply as aforesaid and by

agreeing to sell the schedule land to others,

defendants repudiated the contract of Sale of

schedule property to plaintiff. Looking to the conduct

and attitude of defendants in this transaction,

plaintiff also not willing to per sue the matter

regarding the specific performance of sale agreement

and to get the sale deed from defendants. Hence

plaintiff decided to get back the earnest money,

which eh had paid to defendants under the sale

agreement. Plaintiff is entitled for the refund of

earnest money with interest thereon at 12% p.a. as

compensation from defendants jointly or severally.”

6. The suit was filed on 16.12.2011 and about five

years thereafter, an application was also filed seeking for

permission to amend the plaint. By the proposed

amendment, the plaintiff sought to put forth an altogether

new case that he was entitled for a decree of specific

performance of the agreement of sale dated 24.10.2009.

- 5 -

By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff sought to add

two paragraphs and also sought for deletion that portion of

the plaint whereby the repudiation of the contract had

been accepted by the plaintiff.

7. In fact, by the amendment, the petitioner sought

for deletion of the entire original prayer and in its place

sought for insertion of the prayer for specific performance.

8. The Trial Court on consideration of the application

has permitted the amendment insofar as it related to

incorporating additional averments from the plaint. The

Trial Court has, however, refused the proposed prayer by

which the petitioner sought for specific performance and

hence, this writ petition.

9. It is a well settled principle of law that

amendments to pleadings are to be liberally construed and

granted, however, in cases where the a