Sri Sushil Kumar vs M/S Karnataka Maharashtra on 14 December, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Sushil Kumar vs M/S Karnataka Maharashtra on 14 December, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENuGOPA.I,..A,_A'_GOIA!DA 3

1

 , (5Y,_SR,I  ATSHOEK' KL%M:5\R, ADV.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 14"' DAY OF DECEMBER, 20:0,};

BEFORE

WRIT PETITION NO.3A336/2010 _ 

BETWEEN:

SRI SUSHIL KUMAR    ._ 
S/O LATE P SATHYANARAYAN"A,,Gu..PTHA ' ~
AGED ABOUT 62 VEARS   

R/AT FLAT No.4, E3L_.O"CK-9,  .

NANDI GARDENS, II'PHAS'E_.* 
AMANAPURA POST, _ V

J P NAGAR,_9T.H PHASE"-, _ _  - 
BANGALQ"RE*,;5T6'G 0:42.:   _ 

SRI,,PVK'ANAI<ARAJ  "  ' ' 

S/O LA"FEfP SAT;fH'-.*A'NARAYA.NA GUPTHA
A'GEO_ABOUT~58ME'ARS~-_, ' -

R/AT PLAT NO;.4,.,II PHASE, ANJANAPURA POST
J P NAGAR, ST" 'PHA.SE~,._
BANGAI_.,ORE-560 '@424'
'~ '-  '  PETITIONERS

II'./:,~'«SV" I<ARNATA.I<A:= MAHARASHTRA

. TRANSPORT (PILIMITEO,
. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
 'ACT, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
V.  ._NO..1_._26/772, 2"" PLOOR, ST" CROSS,
_ '=_K.'\LAS=I".PALYAM NEW EXTENSION,
  BANGA'LORE--56O 002
 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

 RESPONDENT

Ix) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227' OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYIN.C5__ TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.3.10 PASSED BY THEV'._X>I'TH ADDITIONAL cmr CIVIL 3uDc3E, COURT HALL --IjNO;"*«,a.,, BANGALORE IN o.s.NO. 5875/99 av REJECTING FILED av THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER 6 RUL.uE*--17AAC'PC'~AT~x T- ANNEXURE--A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FC'RWPi7{Ei.IM.INA«R_T"HEARING."1 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOL'!i:_4O\:'\f»-ING:

Respondent has filed suitOVCOC'adVainVst tOheO..OOo_etitiofners for specific performance of saie dated 13.02.1997 in respectvA,..of:'.,ah The petitioners '_'wr_i:tteh_ contested the claim of the'p.IVa'ii.Ot'i:i%ID' '

-. 'No.13 seeking leave of the court to 2o'i_.aint i.e., to incorporate the ame,,n_fdrne~nt prop.os_edAV therein. By filing statement of objeetio_ns..the'*petitioners opposed the prayer in LA No.13.

i5i~ndi-neg 'iT1«e_rfvit No.13, the triai court allowed the same I . on Petitioners fiied LA No.14 under Order 47 read with Section 151 CPC to review the order .2 on LA No.13. LA No.14 was found to be devoid of 'merit and was dismissed by the triai court by an order _,K dated 09.09.2010. This writ petition by the defendants is to quash the order passed on LA No.13.

3. Sri K.R.Ashoi< Kumar, learned.§'radvo*cat€:._T'. appearing for the petitioners contended that't'r'ie:'_'tri'a'i. count has not considered the objectionsv'fi|ed'tan' I.'A_3N~o:'.'13"VE:r..,.the_' correct perspective and the":o'r-d_Ver passed pe'rrﬁ.i't.tE..ng..3 the amendment of the plaint is irr_a_t'i'o.na-!.._Vand.'iiiegai. viLeamed counsel further contended that 2.j_the"'-spit"document having been seriously di.sputed.,i"the:jpra-yer i:"o"r_ directing the refund of the advance Vtihe" agreement dated 17.11.193910»iisijiexrféicie"barred'"byiimitatéon and hence LA No.13 oU'g'h.t to .hVav'e.%Vbeeri-digmissed. A. h_avev.perLise'd the writ petition papers. 'Lcio nottind merit in the contentions advanced _b'y_...tI'ire::i'ieAa'rned"_j..counsel. In LA No.13 the amendment pro.posed.'fo--r'3V.being incorporated in the plaint reads as Hfollowsrv 3 x "I1. is .<s1.1bmii.i.ec.i i'.1'1ai' the }.3f£'1iI1f.iff11Ei(i aclvanced a sum of Rs3.2,00.OOO~OO in cash as part pztynient of sale c*oi'1side1'a.ii<)1'": t.mc1ei' the 21g1"eerneni' of saie and llatvmg §:< rc:ga1'd to the fact' that the suit. schecltile p1'ope1't.y has been o("(*t.1;)ie(1 by the Sitim 1f)w'e1ie1*s which i1c1(:1'{idi1f1g the property ptirehaseci by the pEz}1in1i1"i' defe11da1'1i'. at earlier poiaii. of time, the P18.i_I1i:fﬁ:V..:f5'€{;;ir{F§" _ the 1"€fE.I11d Ofé-1d1'1'iiI'{€'d amoum. paid _i3V_\,I_'_:i'i1e1'1'i_.A.f.'t()' defenda1'1is:

2. Additional para in prayer c',oit.i1'Ii--z."_i 1{t:.]A = A Di1"ecE",i1'1g_§ the dei'eid_c'iz:=.i1t to pay", of 2 L' 'Rs.2.00.000/w aiotig wit11'Vf4ii'1_i',e;"est. at" 'i*at.e§ of 12% per armum from t.ii-::v_ciate"oi' till the realization.

of the amounii." 1 if if M

6. Ac<;oriii'n_g to p.|4a'i~nti..ff,' Suosequent to the fiiing of the was occupied by slum dwellers wit'_i'i"t.h_.e the Government and it is not in a positiori to'g.et:.jthe"'s._tii't«"property even if a decree for specific. perforoyjance is oranted and hence it sought the ."'ametnorfient'i'to granvtmalternate reiief i.e., refund of advance interest.

"Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, 4";,enah_|_esVVtne plaintiff in a suit for specific performance also .' t°o.Vcia'iA'm compensation for its breach either in addition or in ':9;/ I.' substitution of such performance. Subsections (2) (4) & (S) of said provision are material.

8. For no fault of the plaintiff, if becomes impossible of performanceh the p5'aé'n't--iffjca'n seeir, "' alternate relief i.e., refund of adva4nce"arrno'u.nt-. peid'.V:"ns~«Thie_:

amendment proposed in I.A*l\i'o..__13, xdoxrot in'trvod4uscVe..3any new facts nor a new cause of the subsequent event i.e.A;4-._..V:the"--VjLsLa:_itJ. having been occupied by slurn dianr-ellheilffg ".ﬁ"t_he:".ivcontract being impossible has sought for directing the advance amount with intereﬁst. does not introduce any new case 'ror[--a Ara_ew"'cause of action. The proposed is ne'ce-ssary to decide the real question in L_'conltroversy;'"between the parties. The proviso under Rule 1'7=_'o'f' orde?siV_ CPC (Amended) is not attracted to the 'x__instant= case. The bar of limitation, if any, can be made a A ":l."subje~<_:t matter of an issue and tried. *5» V.' (1 In view of the above, the trial court is justified in allowing LA No.13 and permitting the p|ai_ntViVff.4_:'i~t_o incorporate the proposed amendment in the amendment has already been incorporated._'The-..1peyt'iti,oneis4 "= V are granted four weeks time toi.__fi|e~iaitldiitiolnai statement. If an issue with regard totar' of li.:ni'ta;tio_nVVv_y3ere to arise, the same be raised court, uninfluenced by the obs.eVrvat'ions: yiihich are limited for consid.eratioVn...o.f. as against the order 'ién_'sVt'iti;ted 10 years back is reduired"--.to.'_ and decided as early as practicable land' .at--. aln_yV'*~'event within a period of nine «..moiv-iths if-r:oinAtheV'date*'a copy of this order is supplied to it, V' _ i5*et;i'tio"n,e r.--..

A accordingiy.

Sﬁgiw JUEGEQ'.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court