J. Samuel and Others
Vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others
[Civil Appeal No. 561
of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8985 of 2011]
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 08.02.2011 passed by
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 5162
of 2010 whereby the High Court while setting aside the order dated 20.10.2010 passed
by the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, allowed the
revision petition filed by the respondents herein.
a. The Diocese at Karimnagar
was incorporated on 12.03.1978 from its parent Diocese of Dornakal. On
22.08.1985, the Retired Diocesan Treasurer and Property Secretary, Karimnagar, issued
a publication in the paper to auction the land bearing Survey No. 43,
admeasuring Ac. 3.31 gts. situated at Mission Compound, Dharmapuri Road,
Jagtial and the last date to receive the tenders was fixed as 05.09.1985. On
13.09.1985, the sealed tenders were opened and Gattu Mahesh-Respondent No. 1 herein
and Kotha Mohan-Respondent No. 2 herein, Managing Partners in M/s Jagath Swapna
& Co. put tenders for an amount of Rs. 24,55,569/- along with a DD for an amount
of Rs.2,45,556/- which is 10% of the EMD. They being the highest bidders, their
tenders were accepted.
b. The contract for sale
of property was entered into between the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein with
Karimnagar Diocese on 27.09.1985. It was mentioned in the contract that
Karimnagar Diocese agreed to receive Rs. 2,50,000/- on or before 08.11.1985 because
the land under sale was under dispute and the balance amount was to the paid by
the respondents herein only after getting final dropping of the land
acquisition proposal by the Municipality, Jagtial and sanction of layout by the
Municipality, Jagtial. On 03.04.2003, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein issued a legal
notice to Karimnagar Diocese informing that the land acquisition proceedings
were dropped on 05.05.1986 and the sanction of layout by the Municipality, Jagtial
was completed on 28.12.1989 and to execute and register the sale deed in their
favour as per the agreement dated 27.09.1985.
c. In the absence of adequate
response from Karimnagar Diocese, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 9 of
2004 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial for specific
performance of the contract of sale and for perpetual injunction. During the pendency
of the suit, Karimnagar Diocese filed written statement pointing out the
inherent defects, namely, absence of mandatory requirements of Section 16(c) of
Specific Relief Act and Form 47, Appendix `A' of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
On 24.09.2010, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed I.A. No. 1078 of 2010 in O.S.
No. 9 of 2004 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of the plaint
to incorporate specific pleading in compliance of the above section of the Specific
Relief Act and the Code on the ground that the same was missed due to typographical
error. On 04.10.2010, Karimnagar Diocese filed counter affidavit resisting the
d. By order dated 20.10.2010,
the II Additional District Judge dismissed the application for amendment filed by
the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. Aggrieved by the order, the Respondents
herein approached the High Court by filing Civil Revision Petition being No.
5162 of 2010. The High Court, by impugned order dated 08.02.2011, allowed the amendment
sought for by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.
e. Aggrieved by the said
decision, the respondents have preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition
before this Court.
Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Swami, learned counsel
for the respondents.
only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court is right in
allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the
plaint which was filed after conclusion of trial and reserving the matter for
on the agreement dated 27.07.1985 which relates to sale of 3 acres and 31 gunthas
of land in Survey No. 43 situate in Mission Compound, Dharmapuri Road at
Jagtial for a consideration of Rs.24,55,569/-, the respondents/plaintiffs filed
the said suit for specific performance. Since we have already mentioned factual
details, there is no need to refer the same excepting the details relating to
the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17. After filing written statement by the
contesting defendants, the trial of the suit commenced and admittedly both parties
adduced the evidence on their behalf and arguments on behalf of both the sides were
heard and completed on 22.09.2010.
On that day, the Court
reserved the matter for orders. Meanwhile, on 24.09.2010, the respondents herein
filed a petition praying for amendment of the plaint. In support of the said application,
plaintiff No.2 has filed an affidavit stating that in para 11of the plaint he
has stated about the legal notice issued on 03.04.2003 to defendant Nos. 1 to 7
for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.09.1985 and there was no
reply for it. In para 3 of the affidavit, the deponent has stated that by type
mistake, the following sentences have missed. After para 11 of the plaint, the
following para 12 may be added.
"We are and has
been and still is ready and willing specifically to perform the agreement of
sale dated 27.09.1985 on our part of which the defendants have, had noticed. I am
ready with the balance amount as per agreement of sale dated 27.09.1985. I
submit the para nos. 12-18 of the plaint may be changed as 13 to 19." The
only reason given by the plaintiffs praying for amendment and inclusion of the above
averment in the plaint is "type mistake". It is also stated that it happened
in spite of their due diligence.
above claim was resisted by the appellants herein by filing detailed counter affidavit.
Apart from disputing the merits of the claim of the plaintiffs, with regard to
the petition under Order VI Rule 17 they specifically stated that after passing
several stages in the protracted trial, the final arguments of the plaintiff in
the suit were heard on 20.09.2010.
The defendants have also
filed their written arguments on 22.09.2010 wherein the inherent defect of
plaintiff i.e. absence of averments of mandatory requirements of Section 16(c) Explanation
(ii) and Form 47 Appendix A of CPC was pointed out. Even after this, further argument
was made by both the parties and the counsel for the plaintiff informed the court
that no further time is required and the matter may be posted for judgment.
In view of the same,
the learned trial Judge posted the matter to 04.10.2010 for judgment. Only at
this juncture i.e. on 24.09.2010, plaintiffs came up with the present petition seeking
amendment to incorporate specific pleading in compliance with Section 16 (c) of
the Specific Relief Act and Form 47 of Appendix A CPC on the ground that the
same was missed due to "type mistake" in spite of due diligence. Though
the said claim was not acceptable by the trial Court, the High Court allowed the
plaintiff to amend the plaint as prayed for.
considering the acceptability or otherwise of the reasoning of the High Court,
it is useful to refer Order VI Rule 17 CPC. "17. Amendment of pleadings.-
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such
amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the
real questions in controversy between the parties.
Provided that no application
for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes
to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of trial."The said provision was omitted
by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. Section 16 of the Amendment Act
reads as under: "16. Amendment of Order 6 - In the First Schedule, in
Order 6,-- *** (iii) Rules 17 and 18 shall be omitted.
"After stiff resistance
by the litigants and the members of the bar, again Order VI Rule 17 was re-introduced
with proviso appended therein. As per the said proviso, no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced. However, there is an
exception to the said rule, i.e., if the court comes to the conclusion that in spite
of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of the trial, such application for amendment may be allowed.
proceeding further, it is also useful to refer Section 16(c) of Specific Relief
Act which reads as under: "16. Personal bars to relief.- Specific performance
of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person- (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) who
fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and
willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be
performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or
waived by the defendant. Explanation.-
For the purposes of
clause (c),- (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential
for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in Court
any money except when so directed by the Court; (ii) the plaintiff must aver
performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according
to its true construction."
It is clear that in a
suit for specific performance of a contract, unless there is a specific averment
that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential
terms of the contract, the suit filed by him is liable to be dismissed. In other
words, in the absence of the above said claim that he is always ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract, the decree for specific performance
cannot be granted by the Court.
this legal background, we have to once again recapitulate the factual details. In
the case on hand, Suit O.S. No. 9 of 2004 after prolonged trial came to an end in
September, 2010. The application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was
filed on 24.09.2010 that is after the arguments were concluded on 22.09.2010
and the matter was posted for judgment on 04.10.2010.
We have already
mentioned that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act contemplates that specific
averments have to be made in the plaint that he has performed and has always been
willing to perform the essential terms of the Act which have to be performed by
him. This is an essential ingredient of Section 16(c) and the form prescribes for
the due performance. The proviso inserted in Rule 17 clearly states that no
amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced except when the court comes
to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have
raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.
stated earlier, in the present case, the amendment application itself was filed
only on 24.09.2010 after the arguments were completed and the matter was posted
for judgment on 04.10.2010. On proper interpretation of proviso to Rule 17 of
Order VI, the party has to satisfy the Court that he could not have discovered
that ground which was pleaded by amendment, in spite of due diligence. No doubt,
Rule 17 confers power on the court to amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings.
However, proviso restricts
that power once the trial has commenced. Unless the Court satisfies that there is
a reasonable cause for allowing the amendment normally the court has to reject
such request. An argument was advanced that since in the legal notice sent
before filing of the suit, there is reference to readiness and willingness and
the plaintiff has also led in evidence, nothing precluded the court from entertaining
the said application with which we are unable to accept in the light of Section
16(c) of the Specific Relief Act as well as proviso to Order VI Rule 17.
The only reason stated
so in the form of an affidavit is omission by "type mistake". Admittedly,
it is not an omission to mention a word or an arithmetical number. The omission
is with reference to specific plea which is mandated in terms of Section 16(c)
of the Specific Relief Act.
primary aim of the court is to try the case on its merits and ensure that the
rule of justice prevails. For this the need is for the true facts of the case to
be placed before the court so that the court has access to all the relevant
information in coming to its decision. Therefore, at times it is required to
permit parties to amend their plaints. The Court's discretion to grant permission
for a party to amend his pleading lies on two conditions, firstly, no injustice
must be done to the other side and secondly, the amendment must be necessary
for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
However to balance the
interests of the parties in pursuit of doing justice, the proviso has been added
which clearly states that: no application for amendment shall be allowed after the
trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of
diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain
kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a
party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief.
An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that
the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term `Due
diligence' is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining
whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after
the commencement of trial.
party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due
diligence and is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term
"due diligence" determines the scope of a party's constructive knowledge,
claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit.
the given facts, there is a clear lack of `due diligence' and the mistake
committed certainly does not come within the preview of a typographical error. The
term typographical error is defined as a mistake made in the printed/typed material
during a printing/typing process. The term includes errors due to mechanical failure
or slips of the hand or finger, but usually excludes errors of ignorance. Therefore
the act of neglecting to perform an action which one has an obligation to do
cannot be called as a typographical error. As a consequence the plea of typographical
error cannot be entertained in this regard since the situation is of lack of due
diligence wherein such amendment is impliedly barred under the Code.
claim of typographical error/mistake is baseless and cannot be accepted. In
fact, had the person who prepared the plaint, signed and verified the plaint showed
some attention, this omission could have been noticed and rectified there
itself. In such circumstances, it cannot be construed that due diligence was adhered
to and in any event, omission of mandatory requirement running into 3 to 4
sentences cannot be a typographical error as claimed by the plaintiffs.
All these aspects have
been rightly considered and concluded by the trial court and the High Court has
committed an error in accepting the explanation that it was a typographical
error to mention and it was an accidental slip. Though the counsel for the
appellants have cited many decisions, on perusal, we are of the view that some
of those cases have been decided prior to the insertion of Order VI Rule 17 with
proviso or on the peculiar facts of that case.
This Court in various
decisions upheld the power that in deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed
amendment by compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object
of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing
of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial,
to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other's
It also helps
checking the delays in filing the applications. [vide Aniglase Yohannan vs.
Ramlatha and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 534, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another vs.
Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, Chander Kanta Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh
Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117, Rajkumar Guraward (dead) through LRS. vs. S.K.Sarwagi and
Company Private Limited and Another, (2008) 14 SCC 364, Vidyabai and Others vs.
Padmalatha and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 409, Man Kaur (dead) By LRS vs. Hartar
Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512.
the light of the above discussion, we are in entire agreement with the
conclusion arrived by the Trial Court and unable to accept the reasoning of the
High Court. Accordingly, the order dated 08.02.2011 passed in Civil Revision Petition
No. 5162 is set aside.
civil appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.