AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prakash Krishna, J.—These three revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as jointly agreed by the learned counsel for the parties.
These revisions arise out of a common order passed in three suits instituted by the opposite party no. 1 herein against the present applicants who are defendants for specific performance of contract to sell. There were three agreements between the parties, therefore, three suits were instituted.
It is not in dispute that the agreements in question are oral. The matter had come to this Court earlier in revision nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 2009 which were decided by a common judgment dated 13th of February, 2009 holding that the suits are not liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C as the plaintiffs if so advised may claim return of the earnest money as provided for by section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, which empowers the Court, that even if a specific prayer is not there for refund, the plaint can be got amended and relief can be accorded accordingly.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed applications for amendment of the plaints, which have been allowed by the orders under revisions.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
At the very outset a preliminary objection was raised by the plaintiff opposite party with regard to the maintainability of the revisions in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and Others, wherein it has been laid down that a revisional Court should consider whether the order in favour of the party applying for revision in the Courts below would have given finality to the suit or other proceedings. If the answer is in the affirmative, then application for revision would be maintainable, otherwise not. The submission is that even if the amendment sought for is not allowed, it would not finalize the proceedings in the suit and therefore the revision is not maintainable.
The restricted scope of section 115 is well known and it is not necessary to discuss them in the present revisions as on merits also there is nothing in the revisions. The Court was taken through the amendment application. A bare perusal of the amendment application would show that the amendments sought for by the plaintiff are in the nature of clarificatory pleadings. The learned counsel for the defendant applicant could not demonstrate that the plaintiff is seeking addition of a new plea. What has already been stated in the plaint, is being further clarified through the amendments and the Court below has not exceeded in any manner in exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the amendment.
No illegality or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction has been committed by it.
There is no merit in these revisions. All the revisions are hereby dismissed. But no order as to costs.