AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Kantha Rao, J.—This petition is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC to amend the plaint.
The parties will be referred to as ''Plaintiffs and Defendants'' for the sake of convenience.
The Plaintiffs filed the present amendment petition seeking to delete the names of Defendants 3 and 4 from the suit itself. The Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 297 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District for specific performance of agreement dated 21.06.1992 directing them to execute the documents viz. sale deed relating to the plaint TV schedule property, dissolution deed relating to the partnership firm M/s Ooty Restaurant which was already dissolved and in relation to Sarparavaram Public school which is the plaint ''B'' schedule property.
The Plaintiffs nominated Defendants 3 and 4 to obtain sale deed on their behalf and in view of the said nomination, it is prayed for by them in the suit that the requisite sale deed be executed in favour of the Defendants 3 and 4, who are the nominees of the Plaintiffs. A decree was also passed by the learned trial Court directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Defendants 3 and 4. However, subsequently, there were some disputes between the Plaintiffs and Defendants 3 and 4 and the relationship between them became strained and it is said that they have not also been on talking terms. According to the Plaintiffs, Defendants 3 and 4 started acting contrary to the interest of the Plaintiffs and therefore, they filed the amendment petition for deletion of the names of the Defendants 3 and 4 from the suit.
The petition is opposed by the Defendants 1 and 2 contending that the proposed amendment introduces altogether a new plea and different cause of action, since the Plaintiffs themselves alleged in the petition that some disputes arose between them and the Defendants 3 and 4, such disputes have to be necessarily adjudicated upon by the court and further that without notice to the Defendants 3 and 4, the amendment petition cannot be decided.
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendants 1 and 2.
If the amendment proposed is appropriate and deserves to be allowed, it can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings. If the events took place subsequent to the filing of the suit requires an amendment, it is the duty of the court to take into consideration the said events and allow the amendment so long as it does not cause prejudice to the rights of the opposite party or introduces altogether new plea and different cause of action. In the instant case, according to the Plaintiffs, subsequent to the filing of the suit, the relationship between them and the Defendants 3 and 4 had become very much strained and that they were acting adverse to the interest of the Plaintiffs and also that they had not been on talking terms with the Plaintiffs.
I do not find any basis for the contention that the proposed amendment introduces altogether a new case. Admittedly, the Defendants 3 and 4 are not parties to the agreement dated 21.06.1992 and do not have any right or interest in the subject matter of the suit and they were only nominated by the Plaintiffs for the limited purpose of obtaining sale deed on behalf of the Plaintiffs and that they have nothing to do with the rights and liabilities of the Plaintiffs. It is only prayed for by the Plaintiffs to direct the Defendants 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in favour of the Defendants 3 and 4 as nominees of the Plaintiffs, but the Defendants 3 and 4 have nothing to do with the rights and liabilities arising under the agreement or any other dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the plaint schedule property. They do not have any right which requires adjudication by the Court and as such, the contention of the Defendants 1 and 2 that the presence of D3 and D4 in the suit is essential has no basis. The proposed amendment does not cause any prejudice to the rights or interest of the Defendants 1 and 2. It became necessary only because of the attitude of the Defendants 3 and 4 subsequent to the filing of the suit and the proposed amendment, therefore, can be allowed.
For what all stated herein above, the amendment petition filed by the Plaintiffs seeking to delete the names of the Defendants 3 and 4 deserves to be allowed.
The petition succeeds and therefore, it is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.