T.L. MADDUKRISHANA AND ANR. versus SMT. LALITHA RAMCHANDRA RAO

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 06-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
T.L. MADDUKRISHANA AND ANR. 
v. 
SMT. LALITHA RAMCHANDRA RAO 
JANUARY, 6, 997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 6 Rule l7-Amend111ent of 
plai11t-Pennissibility of 
A 
B 
Li111itatio11 Act, 1963 : Sectio11 3-Schedule-A1ticle 54---Suit for C 
specific perfonna11ce-Li111itation pe1iod for. 
Agree111ent of sale of plot betwee11 appellants a11d respondents-The 
date for the pe1fomwnce of the contract was ftxed as May 28, 1989-Appel-
la11ts calling upon the respo11dents to comply with the tenns of the agree111e11t: 
to obtain Income-tax clearance ce1tificate and pemiission from the Urban D 
Ceiling Autho1ity to alienate the prope1ty to the appellant~~Respondents 
repudiating the contract-Suit filed by appellallts for mandato1y injunction 
directing the respondents to comply with the requirements-Dwing pendency 
of suit appellants made an application 011 November 5, 1992 under Order VI, 
Rule 17 of the CPC for amending the plaint and seeking specific perf onnance E 
of the contract-Application rejected by the T1ial Cowt-Rejection affinned 
by the High Cowt-Appeal-Held for the pwpose of limitation, what is 
mate1ial is that the limitation begins to nm from the date the pmties have 
stipulated for pe1f onnance of the contract-The suit is required to be filed 
within three years from the date ftxed by the palties under the contract-Since 
the application for ame11dme11t of the plaint came to be filed after the expi1y F 
of three years, ce1tainly it cha11ged the cause of action as required to be 
specified in the plaim-The suit for 111a11dato1y injunction was filed a11d the 
specific pe1fo1111ance was sought for by way of an amendment-T71e cause of 
action was required to be stated initially i11 the plaint but it was not 
pleaded-It was sought to be amended, alongwith an application for specific G 
perf on11a11ce which was rejected-T11eref ore even by the date of filing of the 
,.-, 
application, namely, November 5, 1992, the suit was ba1Ted by limita-
tiort-T71e High Coult, therefore, was right in refusing to pem1it the amend-
ment of the plaint. 
Smt. Chand Rani (dead) by Lrs. v. Sml Kanta Rani (dead) by Lrs., H 
11 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
[1993] 1 SCC 519; K. Raheja Co11st111ctioii Ltd. v. Alliances Ministlies & 
01:~., [1995] Supp. 3 SCC 70; Tarlok Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sahhafwal, (1996) 
3 SCALE 558 and Ramza11 ~lfussaini, [1990] 1 SCC 104, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 104 of 
1997. 
-
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.96 of the Karnataka High 
\ 
Court in C.R.P. No. 2246 of 1993. 
r· 
G.V. Chandrasekhar for P.P. Singh for the Appellants. 
c 
I 
Harish Salve, S.K. Kulkarni and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment 
D of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnat~ka, made on 
29.5.1996 in CRP No. 2246/93. 
:,.,1 
The admitted facts are that the appellants and the respondent · 
entered into an agreement on March 16, 1989 for sale of plot of land 
E bearing No. 114/8 situated at Peenya Industrial Suburb II Stage, Peenya 
Village, Bangalore for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs. The date for the 
performance of the contract was fixed as May 28, 1989. The appellants 
issued notice on October 2, 1989 calling upon th~ respondent to comply 
with the conditions mentioned under the agreement, namely to obtain 
Income-tax clearance certificate and• from the Urban Ceiling Authority 
F' 
permitting the respondent to alienate the property to the appeHants. The 
respondent had issued a notice on November 6, 1989 repudiating the 
contract though the execution thereof was admitted. The appellants then 
filed a suit' for mandatory injunctio~ on April 21, 1992 directing the 
respol).dent to comply with the requirements as mentioned in the agree-
G ment. While the suit was pending, the appellants made an application on 
November 5, 1992 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC for amending the 
plaint and seeking specific performance of the contract. The said applica-
tion was rejected by the trial Court and the rejection was affirmed by the 
High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
H 
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that time is not 
• 
T.L.M. KRISHANA v. SMT. L.R. RAO 
13 
the essence of the contract; and, the performance, though it was fixed for A 
May 28, 1989, the other clauses rel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.