HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2575 and 2595 of 2010 DT.02.07.2010 Geddam Shyam Prasad Reddy …Petitioner V. Kakarpalli Subba Rao and another ..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.2575 AND 2595 of 2010 COMMON ORDER:- The petitioner/plaintiff, who instituted the separate suits O.S.Nos.89 and 94 of 2009 in his individual capacity for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 22.12.2005 against the defendants in both the suits, filed I.A.Nos.81 and 80 of 2010 respectively, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1860, seeking amendment of the plaint for inclusion of the expression “Pavani Estates and Developers represented by Managing Partner” in the small cause title and long cause title as the plaintiff in both the suits. Admittedly both the suits were filed in the year 2009, by showing the cause of action for filing the above suits arose on 22.12.2005 i.e., the date of agreement of sale and on coming to know that the 1st defendant without the knowledge of the plaintiff executed a regular sale deed on 10.02.2006 in favour of the 2nd defendant in both the suits. The suit is filed on 19.08.2009 and thereafter on 20.01.2010 the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present petitions for amendment. On respondents/defendants contesting the matter, the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada dismissed both the I.As. by the impugned order dated 26.04.2010, holding that the document Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 i.e., office copies of the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff, reply notice, rejoinder, etc., show that they are the notices exchanged between the plaintiff, referred as G.Syamprasad Reddy and the 1st defendant in his individual capacity, but not in the name of the firm. When the 1st defendant filed the written statement in the suit contending that the suit filed is barred by limitation and that if the amendment is allowed by virtue of the present petitions filed on 20.01.2010, it would be beyond the period of limitation and the defendants will loose their accrued rights by virtue of law of limitation and accordingly dismissed the same. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed. This Court in Ganesh Patwari v. Talla Venkata Ramana Reddy[1], considering an identical issue, held that when the suit itself was filed by the plaintiff in his individual capacity and by virtue of the amendment the plaintiff wants to introduce a fresh case and the holder of the cheque cannot institute a suit on the date when the amendment sought, which is clearly barred by limitation. The plaintiff by seeking an amendment in the cause title by substituting the plaintiff firm in the place of individual plaintiff after the period of limitation amounts to setting up of a new case. If the amendment is allowed, the same will give rise to a new cause of action, which is not pleaded in the plant and therefore, cannot be allowed at a belated stage when the plaintiff had not made any attempt to amend the plaint within the period of limitation in spite of specific pleadings raised in the written statement. A suit which is otherwise barred by limitation and cannot be instituted by the firm against the defendants, by virtue of amendment he is allowed to make a claim even after the period of limitation. Further in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to discharge the obligation under the agreement at all relevant time i.e., from the date of agreement till the date of filing of the suit. Since the firm has not issued any notice about its readiness and willingness, it is only the petitioner/plaintiff in his individual capacity has issued notices of his readiness and willingness and instituted the suit. Equitable rights accrued to the defendants cannot be defeated by amending the plaint. In view of the same, this court does not find any illegality in the discretion exercised by the trial Court, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 2nd July 2010 lmv [1] 2000(1) APLJ 421