SRI. N. NARENDRA BABU v. SMT. M. LALITHA REDDY

SRI. N. NARENDRA BABU, S/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU. (BY SRI. P. MAHESHA., ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. SMT. M. LALITHA REDDY, W/O A.R. NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O NO.2/9, T.THIMMAIAH ROAD, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 70.

#2. SRI. SAILESH KUMAR, S/O B.R. GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

#3. SRI. GOVINDA REDDY, S/O R. RAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21189 WP No. 4894 of 2021 R/O NEAR MUNIREDDY COMPOUND, GARAVEBHAVI PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

#4. SMT. N. KAVITHA REDDY, D/O A.R. NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

#5. SRI. N. CHANDRAHASA REDDY, S/O A.R. NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 R/O NO.2/9, T. THIMMAIAH ROAD, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 70. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.N.R.KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; R4 AND R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE CITY, IN OS NO.2598/2013, DATED 11.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE - E AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.2598/2013 by the XXXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, whereby the Court below had dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21189 WP No. 4894 of 2021 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC).

#2. The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff in the suit has filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance in the year 2013. The present application came to be filed in the year 2013 seeking an amendment, whereby, he wanted to insertion the relief directing the defendants to return the advance amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff, together with an equal amount of Rs.50,00,000/- as damages. The Court below had dismissed the said application observing that as per Section 20(c) of the Specific Performance Act, the plaintiff can seek remedy in case if the defendants fail to prove their readiness and willing to perform their part of the contract, then alternatively the plaintiff is entitled to refund of advance amount from his vendors along with the interest as imposed by the Court. Here looking at the plaint averments, goes to show that the advance amount paid by the plaintiff is Rs.70,00,000/- and in this case defendants failed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff, and defendants agreed to pay Rs.70,00,000/- by way of cheque. But the time to present the cheques was barred as defendants requested plaintiff not to - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21189 WP No. 4894 of 2021 present the cheques for encashment. Therefore, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract, alternatively for refund of advance amount. Here the plaintiff cannot claim damages equivalent to double the advance amount as prayed for in the application. The plaintiff is only entitled to advance amount to be paid by the defendants along with the interest, as per the procedure. Therefore, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is not at all tenable and accordingly dismissed the application.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff had to seek the alternative relief of refund of amount, which was not sought by the plaintiff, as such, they have come up with this application. But, the Court below had recorded the reasons and according to the plaintiff, when the amount is Rs.50,00,000/- the Court recorded that amount paid as Rs.70,00,000/-. Learned counsel submits that all the points that are mentioned in the order are contrary to the averments made by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the Court below ought to have allowed the alternative remedy sought for by the plaintiff seeking refund of the amount. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21189 WP No. 4894 of 2021

#4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - defendant submits that the suit was filed in the year 2016. This relief of damages was also sought for by the petitioner and the Court below had rightly considered and dismissed the application and no grounds are made out seeking interference with the well considered order passed by the Court below.

#5. Having heard the learned counsel from both side, perused the materials on record.

#6. The suit is filed seeking the relief of specific performance and in the suit for specific performance, plaintiff sought alternative if refund of the amount by way of its amendment, which came to be dismissed by the court below. This Court has perused the order. The order contains different figures and facts which is nobody’s case. As far as, seeking the alternate prayer directing the defendant to return the advance amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff is concerned. It is perfect and the court below ought to have allowed such a relief, accordingly to that extent the petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21189 WP No. 4894 of 2021 It is submitted that the suit is of the year 2013. Considering the same Court below shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, but, not later than eight months. Accordingly writ petition is disposed off. All pending IA’s if any shall stand closed. SD/- JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28