THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3956 of 2004 Date: 16.09.2011 Between: Lt. Gen. Cr. Sampath Kumar … Petitioner and Mr. P.Ramakrishna Sarma and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3956 of 2004 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 15.4.2004 in I.A.No.1480 of 2003 in O.S.No.600 of 1999 passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint pleadings. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.600 of 1999. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application I.A.No.1480 of 2003 for amendment of the plaint. After due enquiry, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 15.4.2004 passed by the Court below is sustainable? 4. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 1162 square yards. He entered into a developmental agreement with the 1st respondent-developer. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the 1st respondent- developer was to complete the construction of residential flats within a period of 18 months from the date of taking possession of the land. As per the said agreement, the petitioner is entitled for 45% of the constructed area, whereas the 1st respondent-developer is entitled for 55%. The 1st respondent-developer constructed 12 flats by raising ground + five floors. So 45% of the petitioner’s share comes to 5.6 flats and the 1st respondent-developer is entitled for the remaining 6.4 flats. While so, the 1st respondent-developer discharged only 30% to 40% of his obligation and, therefore, he is entitled for 30% to 40% of the said 6.4 flats. However, the 1st respondent-developer executed 8 registered sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 9 without the consent of the petitioner. Accordingly, they have taken possession of the said 8 flats and hence the petitioner could not take possession of 5 flats as per the development agreement. Since respondent Nos.2 to 9 have purchased all the rights from the 1st respondent-developer, they are legally and morally bound to discharge the obligation of the 1st respondent-developer as per the development agreement and they were made liable for the suit claim and hence sought for the proposed amendments to the plaint. 5. It is the contention of respondent Nos.2 to 9 that they are not aware of the internal arrangement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent-developer and as per the sale deeds, the physical possession of each flat was taken by them. During the pendency of the suit, out of his share of 4 flats, the petitioner himself sold Flat No.4-A to one S. Chidambaram through a registered sale deed dated 18.9.2002 and if the petitioner has any grievance against his attorney, he has to proceed against the 1st respondent-developer and they have no legal obligation to discharge the liability of the 1st respondent-developer. Respondent Nos.2 to 9 have filed individual suits and obtained injunction orders, against which the petitioner preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the same were dismissed. Thus, the injunction orders obtained by them against the petitioner attained finality. 6. As seen from the pleadings, the petitioner originally filed suit against the 1st respondent-developer for recovery of Rs.4,68,000/- and for future mesne profits and damages at Rs.6,000/- per month for each flat, totally for 6 flats, till handing over of the same to him. Admittedly, respondent Nos.2 to 9 have filed individual suits and obtained injunction orders against the petitioner. As the subsequent purchasers i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 9 filed individual suits and obtained injunction orders, the amendment now sought for by the petitioner cannot be allowed, since the present claim through the intended amendment will change the very nature of the suit. 7. Further, respondent Nos.2 to 9 came on record on their own as bonafide purchasers from the 1st respondent-developer to protect their possession and enjoyment over the said flats. Merely because respondent Nos.2 to 9 have purchased the flats, it cannot be said that they have stepped into the shoes of the 1st respondent-developer so as to fasten liability on them, in particular for a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- as claimed by the petitioner. As the amendment now sought for by the petitioner would create a new cause of action and changes the very nature of the suit against respondent Nos.2 to 9, who came on record subsequently, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 16.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3956 of 2004 16.09.2011 (Msr)