Mohan Lal Kain and Another vs M/s. Dream Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Another

K. Kannan, J.—The revision petition is against the order dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement. It is a suit for specific performance in which the defence is that the plaintiff had not been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff has been examined and cross-examined by the defendant where the defendant has attempted to suggest to the plaintiff that one Subhash Chaudhary was the dealer and he had taken the central role in bringing out the transaction. It is elicited in the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witness that Subhash Chaudhary was himself a witness to the agreement. In the amendment which is now sought to be introduced, it is contended that the Subhash Chaudhary had taken upon himself the duty to find a suitable buyer and sell the property and secure the sale consideration. The pleading which is sought to be introduced is that even the plaintiff''s name was subsequently inserted in the agreement and that at the time when the defendant signed the document, the name of the purchaser was left blank. This is a key element to the manner in which the contract was brought about and it cannot be merely an accidental lapse to have been omitted. If the defendant did not know to whom the property was being transacted for sale and the name was subsequently interpolated, it ought to have been in the knowledge of the defendant and must have been made the basis of pleading in the original statement already filed. The amendment which is sought to be introduced brings a whole new case which is inconsistent with the earlier version and prejudice would be caused if such an amendment is brought at this length of time.

I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The revision petition is dismissed.