9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Amendment of pleadings in a civil revision petition. 2. Allowance of amendment to include compensation claim during pending proceedings. 3. Interpretation of provisos under Section 21(5) and Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 4. Consideration of parallel proceedings and belated application for amendment. 5. Application of legal precedents in similar cases. Analysis: 1. The civil revision petition was filed to challenge an order dismissing an application for amendment of the plaint to include a claim for compensation due to the acquisition of the suit property by the government during the proceedings. 2. The petitioners sought to amend the plaint to claim compensation in addition to specific performance. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the petitioners were aware of the acquisition and the compensation could only be paid upon execution of the sale deed. 3. The petitioners relied on the provisos of Section 21(5) and Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing the legislative intent behind allowing such amendments at any stage of the proceedings if conditions are met, as seen in legal precedents like Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh. 4. The respondents contended that the application was belated and the main dispute regarding compensation apportionment under the Land Acquisition Act was pending, making the amendment impermissible. However, the court highlighted that the provisos under the Act mandate allowing such amendments despite delays or parallel proceedings. 5. Referring to legal precedents like Jagdish v. Har Sarup and V.R. Nathan v. Mac Laboratories, the court emphasized the imperative nature of allowing such amendments, even if belated, as long as the conditions specified in the provisos are met. The court also clarified that the decision on the additional relief sought through the amendment should be deferred to the main suit's resolution. 6. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order, allowing the civil revision petition and emphasizing that disallowing the amendment based on parallel proceedings or delay would be an illegality. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the statutory provisions and legal precedents in allowing necessary amendments to pleadings in civil cases.
|
