Gujarat High Court
Jitendrakumar Ramanlal Patel vs Ansuyaben Wd/O Mahendrabhai ... on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17070 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
JITENDRAKUMAR RAMANLAL PATEL & ANR.
Versus
ANSUYABEN WD/O MAHENDRABHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK R SHAH(6385) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
HIREN R PANDYA(8760) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Hiren R. Pandya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 6.
2. Respondent No.2 is already deleted. Though served none appears for rest of the respondents.
3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined for final hearing.
4. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief :-
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2021 passed by Ld. 2 nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exhibit 78 in Special Civil Suit No.586/2012 by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to allowed application Exhibit 78 filed in Special Civil Suit No. 586/2012 of the Petitioners in the interest of justice;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dated 10.11.2021 passed by Ld. 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exhibit 78 in Special Civil Suit No.586/2012, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Special Civil Suit No. 586/2012 pending before the Ld. 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat pending the hearing and final disposal of this (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed fit, in the interest of justice."
5. The parties will be referred as far as possible as per their original position in the suit.
Short facts of the case
6. The petitioners herein are original plaintiffs and respondents are original defendants of Special Civil Suit No. Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined 586 of 2012 pending before the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat. The suit is filed seeking specific performance against defendants No. 1 to 3 with whom plaintiffs have entered an agreement to sell on 03.02.1997. The defendants No. 1 to 4 appear to have executed registered sale-deed in favour of defendant No.5 on 10.02.2009, who in turn executed registered sale-deed in favour of defendant No.6 on 15.03.2011.
6.2 The plaintiffs have challenged both the registered sale- deeds apart from asking for specific performance of agreement to sale executed with defendants No. 2 & 3. The plaintiffs have also prayed an alternative prayer about the refund of earnest money i.e. Rs. 4,25,000/- with 18% interest from the date of suit till payment.
6.3 The suit is contested by the defendants by filing their written statement. The issues are framed by the trial Court but evidence of plaintiffs are yet to be begin, at that stage, the impugned amendment application below Exh. 78 came to be filed by the original plaintiffs under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC read with Section 21 of Specific Reliefs Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1963') 6.4 By way of the impugned application, the original Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined plaintiffs want to amend the plaint by incorporating certain facts in relation to execution of sale-deeds by the defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 in turn defendant No.6 and also to amend the prayers of suits, whereby asking refund of Rs. 17 crores instead of Rs. 4,25,000/- being earnest money and interest not from the date of plaint but from the date of execution of agreement to sell i.e. 03.02.1998. Furthermore, the plaintiffs are also sought an amendment asking for compensation of Rs. 20 crores with 18% interest from the date of execution of agreement to sell i.e. 03.02.1997 till payment and accordingly asked for judgement and decree for the same.
6.5 The defendants appear to have orally contested the impugned application as the trial Court has not permitted to them to file reply as suit was to be proceeded expeditiously.
6.6 After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide its order dated 10.11.2021 has rejected the impugned application with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with DSLA, Surat by the plaintiffs.
6.7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioners - original plaintiffs have preferred the present writ application.
Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined Submission of the petitioners- original plaintiffs
7. At the outset, learned senior advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah with learned advocate Mr. Maulik R. Shah, under the instruction of his clients would submit that the plaintiffs are not pressing any amendment so far as earnest money is concerned i.e. Rs. 17 crores instead of Rs. 4,25,000/-, thereby prayer clause No. 20 (4) to that extent may not be amended in relation to amount claimed in it but for claiming interest from date of execution of agreement to sale instead of date of suit be considered.
7.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah would submit that the trial Court has committed manifest error by rejecting the impugned applications considered it as filed under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC only by completely overlooked Section 21 of Specific Reliefs Act, 1963. He would further submit that as per proviso to Section 21 of the Act, 1963, at any stage of proceedings, amendment can be sought for by the plaintiffs whereby, can claim compensation in addition to decree of specific performance.
7.2 Learned senior advocate Mr. Shah would further submit that the trial Court has completely lost sight of the fact that Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined the plaintiffs can claim compensation in the suit for specific performance at any stage of proceedings and the Court requires to allow plaintiffs to amend the plaint on suitable terms.
7.3 Learned senior advocate Mr. Shah would further submit that the plaintiffs have not given up its principle relief about asking for specific performance of agreement to sell in question, thereby, question of limitation would not be applicable. Nonetheless, he would submit that this Court can also keep open issue of limitation to be decided by the trial Court while concluding the trial of the suit.
7.4 Learned senior advocate Mr. Shah would further submit that so far as amendment as sought for in Para-15 (a) of the plaint is concerned, it is more or less clarificatory in nature, there would no prejudice cause to the defendants if such amendment would have been allowed by the trial Court.
7.5 Learned senior advocate Mr. Shah would submit that as per settled legal position of law, mere delay, negligence, inaction on the part of the party to bring amendment of their pleadings would not be a ground to disallow such amendment.
Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined 7.6 Learned senior advocate Mr. Shah would submit that inadvertently the interest was claimed from the date of suit instead of date of execution of agreement to sell i.e. on 03.02.1997 and noticing such fact, the amendment as sought for as prayed in the amendment application. It is submitted that the Court is empowered to award interest for pre-suit period and as such no bar under law not to claim such interest from the date of execution of agreement to sell.
7.7 To buttress his argument, learned senior advocate Mr. Shah would refer and rely upon the following decisions :-
(i) Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1.
(ii) Kiritbhai Chandubhai Kangariwala Vs. Kishanlal Chandanmal Jain reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC-250226.
(iii) Rajendra Kantilal Dala Vs. Bombay Builders Co.(P) Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2022 Bombay 408.
(iv) Parikh Associates Vs. Navinbhai Kantilal Rathod and others reported in 2012(2)GCD 1270 (Guj.) 7.8 Making the above submission, learned senior advocate Mr. Shah would request this Court to allow the present writ Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined application.
Submission of the respondent No. 6-defendant No. 6
8. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Thakkar with learned advocate Mr. Hiren Pandya for respondent No.6 would submit that there is no error committed by the trial Court while rejecting the impugned amendment application and in that view of the matter, this Court should not interfere with well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court.
8.1 Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar would submit that so called amendment proposed in para-15(a) of the plaint is concerned, this fact was within the knowledge of plaintiffs since inception of the suit which was filed in the year 2012 but for reason best to known to the plaintiffs, have without any proper explanation, it was sought for in the year 2021 by way filing the impugned application, which is not permissible in law.
8.2 Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar would further submit that when there is gross delay and latches on the part of the plaintiffs in not bringing amendment of their plaint, at the stage where issues are already framed, the Court should not grant amendment, even though it is claimed to have been Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined explanatory in nature.
8.3 Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar would further submit that when plaintiffs asking for compensation after efflux of time that too from all defendants as such time barred claim and even though the plea of plaintiffs in the light of Section 21 of the Act, 1963 be accepted, issue of limitation may be kept open to be decided by the trial Court in regard to decide of such compensation sought to be introduced by way of amendment.
8.4 Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar would further submit that there are serious disputed question of facts and law involved in the present case and amendment which has been sought for, is time barred, cannot be granted which is in-fact not granted by the trial Court, thereby, not committed any serious error of law.
8.5 Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar would further submit that the plaintiffs would not be entitled for any interest prior to filing of suit on earnest money and no such amendment can be granted as prayed for.
8.6 Making the above submission, learned advocate Mr. Thakkar would request this Court to dismiss the present writ Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined application.
9. No other and further submissions made by any of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
10. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
Point for determination Is there any serious error of law and or jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court while rejecting the impugned amendment application so filed under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 21 of Specific Reliefs Act, 1963 considered it as time barred?
Analysis
11. The facts which are narrated hereinabove are not in dispute. The plaintiffs have entered into an agreement to sell with defendants No. 1 to 3 in the year 1997. The defendant No. 1 to 4 appears to have executed registered sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 5 in the year 2009, in turn executed registered sale-deed in favour of defendant No.6 in the year 2011 in relation to suit land which is the Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined subject matter of agreement to sell in question.
11.1 The suit was instituted in the year 2012 and after completion of pleadings and framing all issues but before commencement of trial i.e. leading oral evidence of plaintiffs, at that stage, the plaintiffs have filed the impugned amendment application under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 21 of the Act, 1963. The title of the impugned application itself shows that it was filed under the aforesaid provisions of law.
11.2 The trial Court has without appreciating and taking into account Section 21 of the Act, 1963 rejected the impugned amendment application on the ground that claim of compensation after so many years would be time barred as agreement to sell was executed in the year 1997, whereas, amendment sought for in the year 2021, such claim is time barred. There is fallacy on the part of the trial Court having poor understanding of law and inasmuch as it completely lost sight Section 21 of Act, 1963, which entitled the plaintiffs to claim compensation at any stage of proceedings by way of amendment of plaint which can be granted by the trial Court.
12. For ready perusal of Section 21 of the Specific Reliefs Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined Act, 1963 reads thus :-
"21. Power to award compensation in certain cases. -(1) In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff may also claim compensation for its breach [in addition to] such performance.
(2) If, in any such suit, the court decides that specific performance ought not to be granted, but that there is a contract between the parties which has been broken by the defendant, and that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for that breach, it shall award him such compensation accordingly.
(3) If, in any such suit, the court decides that specific performance ought to be granted, but that it is not sufficient to satisfy the justice of the case, and that some compensation for breach of the contract should also be made to the plaintiff, it shall award him such compensation accordingly.
(4) In determining the amount of any compensation awarded under this section, the court shall be guided by the principles specified in section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872).
(5) No compensation shall be awarded under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such compensation in his plaint:
Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such compensation in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just, for including a claim for such compensation.
Explanation.-The circumstances that the contract has become incapable of specific performance does not preclude the court from exercising the jurisdiction conferred by this section."
13. The plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1963 would clear every one's doubt that the plaintiffs having not claimed any compensation in the plaint filed for specific Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined performance can claim at any stage of proceedings and the Court should at any stage of proceedings, allow plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just.
14. Even in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 as discussed and analysis the aforesaid provisions of law and its applicability in such counts of suit seeking for specific performance observed that plaintiff can amend plaint at any stage of proceeding by incorporating claim of compensation subject to principle relief of specific performance of contract is not given up by plaintiff. (See : Sanjeev Builders (supra) - Para-3, 8, 56-62 )
15. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also discussed the very provisions which is germane in the present matter and accordingly approved such amendment [See : Kiritbhai Chandubhai Kangariwala (supra) ]
16. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, entire basis of rejecting the impugned application by the trial Court falls on ground as it has committed serious error of law and so also jurisdictional error by not permitting amendment of plaint, so far as addition of prayer of compensation is concerned.
Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined
17. As far as other amendments which are sought for by way of the impugned amendment application, fall under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. As such considering the nature of amendment sought for, it could not have been denied by the trial Court and it appears that same is not properly addressed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.
18. Be that as it may, it is now well settled legal position of law that mere delay, negligence and or inaction on the part of the parties to the suit to bring amendment would not be a ground to deny it unless there is serious prejudice cause to the other side.
19. It would apt to refer and rely upon the following conclusion of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 after revisiting its decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of amendment held thus :-
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.1 Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined 71.2 All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed 71.3.1 if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and 71.3.2 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
71.4 A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless 71.4.1 By the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, 71.4.2 The amendment changes the nature of the suit, 71.4.3 The prayer for amendment is malafide, or 71.4.4 By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
71.5 In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
71.6 Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined 71.7 Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
71.8 Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
71.9 Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
71.10 Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
71.11 Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)"
(emphasis supplied)
20. The another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Jai Ram Monohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, (1969) 1 SC 869, wherein it has been held as under :-Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined "5. The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice.
A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. In Amulakchand Mewaram v. Babulal Kanalal Taliwala,1933 35 BomLR 569 : 1933 SCC OnLine Bom 72 , Beaumont, C.J., in delivering the judgment of the Bombay High Court set out the principles applicable to cases like the present and observed:
"the question whether there should be an amendment or not really turns upon whether the name in which the suit is brought in the name of a non-existent person or whether it is merely a misdescription of existing persons. If the former is the case, the suit is a nullity and no amendment can cure it. If the latter is the case, prima facie, there ought to be an amendment because the general rule, subject no doubt to certain exceptions, is that the Court should always allow an amendment where any loss to the opposing party can be compensated for by costs."
(emphasis supplied)
21. It would also profitable to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Varun Pahwa Vs. Renu Chaudhary, (2019) 15 SCC 628 wherein observed thus:-
"8. The memo of parties is thus clearly inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations ."
(emphasis supplied)
22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, I am not convinced with the argument canvassed by the learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for respondent No.6 that other amendment which are sought for by the plaintiffs having sought after long time cannot be granted. It is not even the case of defendants that such explanatory / clarificatory amendment sought for in proposed Para-15(a) of the plaint is hopelessly time barred and so also the Court is not empowered to grant interest for pre-suit period.
23. At the same time, question of limitation which is sought to be raised by the defendants can very well examined by the trial Court when it decides all issue germane from the pleadings of the parties and as per evidence coming forth on record of the suit and as such issue of limitation along with other issues can be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.
Conclusion Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined
24. The upshot of the aforesaid observations and reasons, would lead to only one conclusion that the impugned order suffers from gross error of law inasmuch as the trial Court has without properly interpreting the aforesaid provisions of CPC and Specific Relief Act, 1963, rejected the impugned application thereby committed jurisdictional error which requires to be corrected by this Court in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (See : Waryam Singh v/s Amarnath - AIR 1954 SC 215).
25.0 This Court finds merit in the present writ application, which requires to be partly allowed as follows.
25.1 The impugned order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat below Exh. 78 in Special Civil Suit No. 586 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside.
25.2 Consequently, the impugned amendment application filed below Exh. 78 in the aforesaid suit is hereby partly allowed to the extent that except not granting amendment in prayer clause i.e. Para-20 (4) in relation to Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined the amount of earnest money i.e. Rs. 17 crores instead of Rs. 4,25,000/- (as not pressed by the petitioners), rest of the amendment as sought for in the impugned amendment application is hereby allowed.
25.3 Accordingly, the plaintiffs are hereby directed to submit the amended plaint within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
25.4 The defendants are also hereby directed to submit their amended written submission if any against the amendment of plaint within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of amended plaint.
25.5 The trial Court is hereby requested to add/ amend issues as per amended pleading of parties. It would be open for the parties to submit their suggestive issues to the trial Court.
25.6 Let all exercise be undertaken before the trial Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 26. As the suit was instituted in the year 2012, it is ordered to be expedited subject to giving co-operation and extending support by the parties to the trial Court for early adjudication of suit. The suit may be Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17070/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined heard and decided as expeditiously as possible.
26. If so far petitioners have not deposited Rs. 20,000/ cost with DLSA, Surat as per impugned order, petitioners are not required to deposit any cost having quashed impugned order but in a case where, it is already deposited, considering peculiar facts of the present case, not entitled to get refund of it.
27. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Sd-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) SALIM/ Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:35:54 IST 2025