LexK. RAHEJA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. AND ANR. versus ALLIANCE MINISTRIES AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A K. RAHEJA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. AND ANR. v. (· ALLIANCE MINISTRIES AND ORS. MAY 1, 1995 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 6 Rule 17-Amendment of plaint-Condition precedent-Fulfill- c ment of-Not asking for the relief of specific performance in the original suit-Amendment application flied after limitation period-Held : Barred by limitation. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating, encumbering, selling, disposing of, or in any D way dealing with the suit property. Subsequently they filed an application seeking to amend the plaint for the grant of the relief of specilic perfor- mance. In support of the amendment application it was averred that subsequently they discovered that the Charity Commissioner had granted permission for sale of the Trust Property and therefore, they were entitled E to the decree of specilic performance. They also relied on certain letters wherein the petitioner themselves had expressly stated that there was a concluded contract of sale between the petitioners and the respondents and that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract paying the balance consideration in terms of the terms and conditions of F the said letters, but in their reply the respondents rejected the order of the petitioners. The amendment application was dismissed by the trial Court as also by the Higb Court. In the Special Leave Petition, it was contended that the relief was really founded upon the facts set out in the plaint and it was the sub- G sequent knowledge about permission granted by the Charity Commis- sioner for alienation, which required the amendment and the petitioners were not precluded from filing an application for amendment or the plaint. I • ' Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, this Court H HELD : 1.1. The application for amendment was barred by limita- 960 K. RAHEJA CONSTS. v. ALLIANCE MINISTRIES 961 tion. (963-E) A 1.2. It is seen that the permission for alienation is not a condition precedent to file the suit for specific performance. The decree of specific performance will always be subject to the condition to the grant of the permission by the competent authority. The petitioners having expressly admitted that the respondents have refused to abide by the terms of the B contract, they should have asked for the relief for specific performance in the original suit itself. Having allowed the period of seven year to elapse from the date of filing of the suit, and the period of limitation being three years under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, any amendment on the grounds set out, would defeat the valuable right of C limitation accrued to the respondent. (962-H, 963-A, BJ A.K Gupta v. D. V.C., (1966] 1 SCR 796, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9397 of 1995. D From. the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.95 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P.No. 510 of 1995. N.S. Hegde, P.P. Singh and G.V. Chandrasekhar for the Petitioners. A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : E The petitioners admittedly filed O.S.No. 213/93 (subsequently num- bered as O.S. 251/87) for relief of permanent'injunction restraining the F respondents from alienating, encumbering, selling, disposing of, or in any way dealing with the said property, more particularly described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint or any portion thereof. In paragraph 13 of the plaint it was stated thus : "The said defendants after a lapse of a month, through a letter G dated 29th April, 1987 sent by defendant No. 4 to pla/ntiff No. 1 blandly intimated that the offers of plaintiff No. 1 were not being accepted by the trustees of defendant No. 1, a copy of the 4th defendant's said letter dated 29th April, 1987 is anoexed hereto and marked as document No. 4. By his letter dated 4th May, 1987 H 962 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (1995]3 S.C.R. addressed to defendant No. 4, the plaintiff No. 1 set out the correct position and reiterated that a definite and concluded contract for sale of the said property in favour of plaintiff No. 1 had been confirmed by the said defendants to allege that the offers had not been accepted. The 1st plaintiff by their said letter also reiterated their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and pay the balance pu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.