Skip to content


Sudama Prasad Sah Vs. Ram Singhason Choudhry and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 3523 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1983SC270; 1982(2)SCALE1364; (1983)1SCC399
ActsConstitution of India - Article 136
AppellantSudama Prasad Sah
RespondentRam Singhason Choudhry and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....an amendment and in this case the amendment only sought to introduce an express averment of readiness and willing-ness and perhaps, therefore, we might have interfered with the order of the high court, but having regard to the nature of the claim, we do not think it necessary in the interests of justice that we should interfere with the order of the high court in the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under article 136 of the constiution. of course, it will be open to the appellant to argue that the facts as stated in the plaint constitute sufficient-averment of his readiness and willing-ness to carry out his part of the contract and it will be for the trial court to decide whether such argument is valid or not. in the circumstances we reject the appeal with no order as to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the High Court in revision setting aside an order of the trial court allowing amendment of the plaint in a suit for specific performance filed by the appellant against the respondents. It is true that the High Court ordinarily should not interfere in revision with and an order passed by the subordinate court allowing an amendment and in this case the amendment only sought to introduce an express averment of readiness and willing-ness and perhaps, therefore, we might have interfered with the order of the High Court, but having regard to the nature of the claim, we do not think it necessary in the interests of justice that we should interfere with the order of the High Court in the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constiution. Of course, it will be open to the appellant to argue that the facts as stated in the plaint constitute sufficient-averment of his readiness and willing-ness to carry out his part of the contract and it will be for the trial court to decide whether such argument is valid or not. In the circumstances we reject the appeal with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //