9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant in the plaint that on July 16, 1976 the respondentdefendant entered into an agreement in his favour for sale of the suit property comprising a shop and a bhatti room situated at Kirloskar Road, Belgaum City for a sum of Rs.20,000. The appellant paid to the respondent as part consideration a sum of Rs.5,000 and pursuant to the agreement for sale the appellant was put in possession of the suit property. The sale agreement provided that the registered sale deed was to be executed by the respondent after securing a No Objection certificate or permission from the competent officer as required under the Karnataka Urban Land Ceiling Act and within one month of the grant of such permission. The respondent received the No Objection or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowing the said amendment. It is the correctness of this decision which is challenged before us. In the leading case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patii v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others, AIR 1957 SC 363 a Bench comprising three learned Judges of this Court laid down the principles which should govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments. It was held by this Court that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a plaint in a suit for specific performance in view of the provisions of sub-section (c) of section 16 of the Specific Relief Act was not made, probably on account of some oversight or mistake of the lawyer who drafted the plaint and that error was sought to be rectified by the amendment applied for. There was no fresh cause of action sought to be introduced by the amendment and hence, no question of causing any injustice to the respondent on that account arose. Learned counsel for the respondent placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Ouseph Varghese v. Joseph Aley and Others, [1963] 2 SCC 539. In that case, a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff on the basis of an alleged agreement with the first defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
