http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: K.RAHEJA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ALLIANCE MINISTERS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1768            1995 SCC  Supl.  (3)  17  1995 SCALE  (3)692

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 1ST DAY OF MAY, 1995 Present:           Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.L.Hansaria Mr. N.S.Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr.P.P.Singh and Mr. G.V.Chandrasekhar, Advs. with him for the Petitioners. Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Adv. for the Respondents                         O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION      SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9397 OF 1995 K. RAHEJA CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ANR.        .....PETITIONERS V. ALLIANCE MINISTRIES & ORS.                .....RESPONDENTS                          O R D E R      The   petitioners    admittedly   filed   O.S.No.213/93 (subsequently  numbered   as  O.S.251/87)   for  relief   of permanent  injunction   restraining  the   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  dated  29th      April, 1987  sent by  defendant No.4  to      plaintiff 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 annexed hereto and marked      as document  No.4. By  his letter  dated      4th May,  1987  addressed  to  defendant      No.4, the  plaintiff No.1  set  out  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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  purchase      price in  accordance with  the terms and      conditions agreed  upon. A  copy of  the      said  letter  dated  4th  may,  1987  is      annexed hereto  and marked  as  document      No.5".      Pursuant to  the letter  dated April 29, 1987 addressed by the plaintiff, the defendants in their reply dated 4.5.87 rejected  the   offer  of   the  petitioners.   Therein  the petitioners themselves  have expressly set out that there is a concluded contract of sale between the petitioners and the respondents and  that they  are ready and willing to perform their part  of the contract paying the balance consideration in  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  said  letters.  In paragraph 28  of the  plaint, April  29, 1987  is one of the dates set  out to give them cause of action. On November 25, 1994 application  under Order  6 Rule  17 was  filed in I.A. 745/94 seeking  to amend  the plaint  for the  grant of  the relief  of  specific  performance.  The  averments  made  in support thereof  is that  they subsequently, discovered that the Charity Commissioner had granted permission for the sale of the  Trust Property  and, therefore,  the petitioners are entitled  to   the  decree  of  specific  performance.  That application was  dismissed by the trial Court on January 20, 1995 and  by the  High Court on February 21, 1995 in CRP No. 510/95. Thus, this petition for leave.      Shri Santosh  Hegde, learned  senior  counsel  for  the petitioners, has  contended that  the petitioners  have  not come forward  with any  new plea.  They have set out all the material allegations  and their  claims in  the plaint. What they are  seeking for  is only a formal relief which, though not originally asked for, the omission does not preclude the petitioners to  file the  application under  Order 6 Rule 17 seeking for  the amendment  of the  plaint.  The  relief  is really founded  upon the  facts set out in the plaint and it is the  subsequent knowledge about permission granted by the Charity Commissioner  for  alienation,  which  required  the amendment. We find that the contention is not tenable.      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 contract, they should have asked for the relief for specific performance in the original suit itself. Having allowed the  period of  seven years elapsed 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  limitation  accrued  to  the respondent.      Shri Hegde  placed strong  reliance on  the judgment of this Court  in A.K.Gupta vs. D.V.C. reported in 1966 (1) SCR 796. In  that case,  the petitioners  had expressly reserved the right to claim the amount of Rs.65,000/- in the original

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

plaint,  valuing   it  accordingly.  Since,  the  relief  of injunction was confined to a limited point, subsequently, he filed an  application for the alternative relief of recovery of the  amount of Rs.65,000/-. In that view, this Court held that since  the petitioners  have already reserved the right in the  plaint, the  relief  of  injunction,  as  originally prayed for,  did not  preclude the  appellant  to  file  the application under  Order 6  Rule 17  to claim the relief for the amount which he originally sought for. The ratio therein has no application to the facts in this case.      On  the   facts,  we  hold  that  the  application  for amendment  was   barred  by  limitation.  The  petition  is, accordingly, dismissed.