M/S Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd vs Kamal Kumar
2017 Latest Caselaw 6746 Del

$~16
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 1263/2012
       M/S BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT LTD              ..... Plaintiff
                    Through: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Manmeet
                    Kaur, Mr. Yashvardhan Bandi, Ms.Rashmita Roy
                    Chowdhry, Advocates
            versus

       KAMAL KUMAR                                      ..... Defendant
                          Through: Mr. Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya,
                          Mr. Varun Kalia, Mr. Vikas Poonia, Advocates
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                    ORDER

% 27.11.2017 IA 8537/2017 (of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC)

1. The plaintiff, in this Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property, seeks to amend the plaint to, in the alternative to the relief of specific performance, seek damages from the defendant.

2. Reliance is placed on Shamsu Suhara Beevi vs. G. Alex & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 569 and on Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. The only objection of the counsel for the defendant is of the relief by way of compensation being barred by time on the date the application was filed and the amendment changing the nature and character of the Suit.

4. Upon attention of the counsel for the defendant being invited to Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, he states that the matter be adjourned to enable him to study the matter.

5. Suits cannot be kept pending by adjourning in such fashion and the counsel ought to have appeared after full preparation and not in this half baked fashion.

6. As far as the contention of the counsel for the defendant is concerned, the same has no merit in view of judgment dated 18th September, 2017 in CM(M) No.1039/2017 titled Ram Mohan Vs. Anil Kumar.

7. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud speaking for the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Kahini Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Morarji Panchamatia 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 220 has also held that where the legislature has contemplated that the plaint can be amended at any stage of the proceedings as stipulated in the proviso to Sections 21(5) and 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, such an amendment can be brought about at any stage of the proceedings without regard to whether the claim sought to be added thereby is within time or not. The same is the view of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Donthi Padmavathamma Vs. Suguna Fertilizers 1983 SCC OnLine AP 146.

8. On enquiry, it is stated that issues have not been framed in the Suit.

9. The application is allowed and disposed of.

10. The counsel for the plaintiff states that though an amended plaint was filed along with the application for amendment, but is found to contain a number of typographical errors.

11. Amended plaint be filed on or before 7th December, 2017 with advance copy to counsel for the defendant who may file a written statement thereto on or before 8th January, 2018. The plaintiff to file replication on or before 8th February, 2018.

12. The parties to file affidavits of admission/denial of each others documents, also by 8th February, 2018.

13. List for framing of issues, if any, on 13th March, 2018.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J NOVEMBER 27, 2017 Pk..