Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/2317/2018 of Karri Ramesh Vs Garbhapu Ramarao on 29 December 2023
NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.NO.2317 of 2018 ORDER: The present Revision Petition is filed against the interlocutory order dated 31.01.2018 in I.A.No.631 of 2017 in O.S.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. 2. The petitioner is the
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.NO.2317 of 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present Revision Petition is filed against the interlocutory order dated 31.01.2018 in I.A.No.631 of 2017 in O.S.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the main suit, who had entered into an Agreement of Sale on 13.01.2016 with the defendant for purchase of land and he had paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards advance. The petitioner was subsequently informed that there is a civil dispute with regard to the land covered under the suit Agreement of Sale, dated 13.01.2016 i.e., O.S.No.193 of 2012 on the file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili and hence filed the suit for recovery of advance money with interest.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner/plaintiff was informed that there is no suit nor there is any civil dispute with regard to the land proposed to be sold to the petitioner and hence an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C to amend the plaint and seek relief of specific performance of the contract, as the primary relief. The said application was dismissed. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
5. Point:- The application for amendment was filed before the issues were framed and the petitioner in the plaint had specifically mentioned the reason for seeking return of advance amount instead seeking suit for specific performance, as there is a civil dispute pending i.e., O.S.No.193 of 2012 before the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili and it was on that count the petitioner had sought for refund of money.
6. By virtue of the present amendment, the petitioner is only seeking to claim primary relief of specific performance, as he is informed of the fact that there is no civil dispute with regard to the land. The primary relief sought by the petitioner does not change the cause of action nor does it affect the right of the defendants. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in LIC vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.,[1] that all amendments should be allowed as long as they do not create any prejudice or change the cause of action.
7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the interlocutory order dated 31.01.2018 in I.A.No.631 of 2017 in O.S.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Date: 29.12.2023
_____________________
JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
IS
12023 SCC Online 1128
IS
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.NO.2317 of 2018Date: 29.12.2023