Back
2008(2) Supreme 166
Supreme Court of india
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Tarun chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Puran Ram — Petitioner
versus
Bhaguram & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 1673 of 2008
Decided on : 29-02-2008
AIR 1921 Mad 664 – Cited with approval.
(b)Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 26 – When the description of the suit property has been kept intact, it is difficult to conceive that by such amendment either the description of the suit property or the nature of the suit would change – This being only a change in a part of the description of the suit property cannot convert the suit for specific performance of the contract to a suit for declaration. (Para 13)
(c)Constitution of India – Article 227 – High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the trial court which was passed on sound consideration of law and facts – More so when it cannot be said that the order of the trial court was either without jurisdiction or perverse or arbitrary. (Para 14)
(d)Judicial Review – Court may, in its discretion, allow an application for amendment of the plaint even where the relief sought to be added by amendment is allegedly barred by limitation – An amendment, which subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, should be allowed – Amendment of the plaint should not be refused on technical grounds – No question of limitation shall arise when mis-description of the name of the original plaintiff or mis-description of the suit property arose in a particular case. (Para 15)
(2004) 6 SCC 415; AIR 1969 SC 1267 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case:
1.The appellant had entered into an agreement for sale to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
2.On 12th of April, 1991, he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the vendor Bhaguram. By virtue of the payment, Bhaguram, the respondent No.1, has put the appellant in possession of the suit property and has also agreed to receive a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant within a period of 30 days and thereafter execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. On 12th of April, 1991, Bhaguram received the balance consideration money of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant and executed an agreement to sell and a power of attorney in his favour.
3.Since the respondent No.1 had failed to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration money of Rs.1,50,000/-, the appellant was constrained to file the suit for specific performance of contract for sale and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.
4.When the description of a part of the suit property was found to be a mutual mistake, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 20th of March, 1998 seeking to amend the plaint and give the description of the suit property as Chak No.3 SLM instead of Chak No.3 SSM.
5.By an order dated 29th of August, 1998, the prayer for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the trial court.
6.A revision petition filed thereagainst was rejected as withdrawn with liberty to raise the question in appeal against the final judgment, if such occasion arose.
7.Since the agreement entered into by the parties contained a wrong description relating to the suit property, the appellant filed another application for amendment of the plaint seeking amendment this time not only of the plaint but also the agreement to sell dated 12th of April, 1991.
8.By an order dated 25th of February, 2005, the Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner, allowed the application for amendment of the plaint.
9.The respondent No.2, who has purchased the suit property from the respondent No.1, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid order allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.
7.By an order dated 16th of May, 2005, which is now impugned in this appeal, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the trial court.
Findings of the Court :
The Impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
In a suit for specific performance of a sale contract, it is permissible to amend the description of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the agreement, provided the description remains consistent and the amendment does not alter the fundamental nature of the suit (!) .
An amendment that involves correcting a mutual mistake in the description of the property does not change the essence or the character of the suit for specific performance; it is considered a rectification rather than a new or different suit [Para 13].
The court's power to allow amendments extends to correcting errors or inaccuracies in the description of the property, and such corrections can be made in the same suit without the need for filing a separate suit for rectification, especially when the amendment seeks to clarify or correct mutual mistakes (!) (!) .
Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides that when a contract or instrument does not express the true intention due to mutual mistake or fraud, it can be rectified through a suit or claim in the existing suit, and the court may allow amendments at any stage to include such claims (!) (!) .
The amendment of the agreement to correct a part of the description of the property is permissible and does not involve a change in the nature of the original suit for specific performance; it is a formal correction that relates back to the original filing date, thus remaining within the period of limitation (!) .
The court may permit amendments even if the relief sought by such amendments appears to be barred by limitation, as the discretion to allow amendments is broad and aims to serve the cause of justice (!) (!) .
The rejection of amendments by the higher courts solely on the grounds that they would change the suit's character or are barred by limitation is not justified when the amendments are only clarificatory or rectificatory in nature (!) (!) .
The order of the trial court allowing amendments should generally be upheld unless there is a clear jurisdictional error or arbitrariness. Interference by higher courts under constitutional powers should be cautious and justified (!) .
The description of the property in the original plaint was only a mutual mistake, and correcting this description does not transform the suit into a different type; it remains a suit for specific performance, with the amendment being a formal rectification (!) .
The legal provisions and principles support the view that amendments aimed at correcting errors in the description of the property, made in the interest of justice, should be allowed, and technical objections such as limitation or change of suit character should not prevent such corrections (!) (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal principles and reasoning related to amendments of pleadings and agreements in suits for specific performance, emphasizing the importance of rectification and the broad discretion courts have to permit such amendments in the interest of justice.
judgment
Tarun Chatterjee, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal relates to rejection of an application for amendment of plaint in a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur by which the High Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, had reversed the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.
3.On 18th of December, 1997, the plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell relating to 25 bighas of irrigated agricultural land in Chak No. 3 SLM, being Square No. 112/63, Colonization Tehsil Pungal, District Bikaner, Rajasthan (hereinafter called as “the suit property”) and for permanent injunction.
4.The case made out by the appellant in the plaint is to the following effect :-
5.The appellant had entered into an agreement for sale to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On 12th of April, 1991, he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the vendor Bhaguram. By virtue of the payment, Bhaguram, the respondent No.1, has put the appellant in possession of the suit property and has also agreed to receive a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant within a period of 30 days and thereafter execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. On 12th of April, 1991, Bhaguram received the balance consideration money of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant and executed an agreement to sell and a power of attorney in his favour. Since the respondent No.1 had failed to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration money of Rs.1,50,000/-, the appellant was constrained to file the suit for specific performance of contract for sale and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. It is to be noted that the appellant in his plaint has described the suit property as falling in Chak No.3 SSM, Tehsil Pungal, District Bikaner.
6.When the description of a part of the suit property was found to be a mutual mistake, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 20th of March, 1998 seeking to amend the plaint and give the description of the suit property as Chak No.3 SLM instead of Chak No.3 SSM. Initially, the application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking to correct a part of the description of the suit property only in the plaint. The application for amendment of the plaint was contested by the respondent No.1. However, by an order dated 29th of August, 1998, the prayer for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the plaint was filed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 12th of April, 1991 and since no prayer was made for getting the agreement amended, the application for amendment of the plaint could not be allowed. Feeling aggrieved, a revision petition was filed, but later on, the same was rejected as withdrawn with liberty to raise the question in appeal against the final judgment, if such occasion arose. Since the agreement entered into by the parties contained a wrong description relating to the suit property, the appellant filed another application for amendment of the plaint seeking amendment this time not only of the plaint but also the agreement to sell dated 12th of April, 1991 so as to describe the suit property as Chak No.3 SLM, later on converted to Chak No. 3 SWM in place of Chak No.3 SSM. In the said application for amendment, the appellant sought amendment of the agreement on the ground that under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, he was entitled to seek amendment in the plaint as well as in the agreement by which the nature of the suit, which is a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale could not be said to have been changed. This application for amendment of the plaint was also contested by the respondent No.1 contending, inter alia, that if such amendment
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
