IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.33950 OF 2014 (GM - CPC) Between:
M/s. Salarpuria Housing Private Limited, A Company Incorporated under The Companies’ Act, Having its registered Office at No.7, Chittaranjan, Avenue Kolkatta, And its Branch Office at Bangalore, No.100, K.H.Road, Bangalore – 560 027. Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Sri.Ashwin Sancheti. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Raghavendra Rao K., Advocate) And:
M/s. NGEF Limited, A Public Limited Company, Incorporated under Companies’ Act, Having its registered office at Post Bag No.3876, Byappana Halli, Bangalore – 560 038.
Represented by Official Liquidator, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore ... Respondent (By Sri Saji P John, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 found at Annexure – E passed by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH – 41) at Bangalore on I.A. No.II in O.S.No.5862/2005 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER This writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 24.2.2014 passed in O.S.No.5862/2005 on the file of XL Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of plaint is dismissed.
2. The original suit in the Court below is for the relief of specific performance. It is stated by the petitioner who is plaintiff in the court below that the defendant in the court below who is respondent herein filed its affidavit in lieu of evidence. In the said affidavit, at paragraphs 11 and 12 it was stated that the suit schedule property was acquired for Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited and a copy of the said acquisition notification issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District was also produced. It is in the background of subsequent development, it is stated that the contract between the parties has become impossible of its performance, hence, it is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant in the court below must pay compensation for the loss that the petitioner has sustained because of non performance of the contract. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner herein filed the aforesaid application for amendment in IA.2/2012, which came to be rejected by the court below by its order dated 24.2.2014.
3. Impugning the order of the court below, the petitioner has come up in the present writ petition contending that the reasons assigned by the court below for rejection of the application is without basis and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and also the provisions of Specific Relief Act, which entitles the plaintiff in the court below to seek amendment. It is also contended that non consideration of statutory provisions of Sections 24 and 22 of Specific Relief Act has also resulted in miscarriage of justice.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the order impugned. On going through the same it is clearly seen that the court below answered point No.1 which is with reference to whether plaintiff has shown reasonable grounds to allow the amendment of the plaint as prayed, in negative on the ground that if the said amendment is allowed it will affect the nature of the suit itself as such amendment cannot be allowed. When the reasons assigned by the court below on said point is looked in to, it is clearly seen that the suit for specific performance is sought to be amended as a suit for damages by extensively amending the pleadings in trying to bring extraneous pleadings in to the present suit and trying to expand the horizon of the litigation. In that view of the matter the finding of the court below in rejecting the application of the plaintiff for amendment appears to be just and proper. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that by allowing the application of the plaintiff this Court cannot alter the basis of the litigation.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, I.A. No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/nd* CT:SN