THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1377 of 2010 Dt:23-07-2010 Between : Md. Akber Mahmood ..Petitioner And Mrs. Muzaffar Moosa .. Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Y. Mansoor Counsel for respondent : Sri M.A.K. Mukheed < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1377 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.644 of 2007 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The petitioner filed written-statement and opposed the suit. The trial Court framed the issues, and the trial of the suit commenced. The respondent filed I.A.No.2424 of 2009, under Rule 17 of Order VI read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit her to amend the suit. The proposed amendment related to the house number of the suit schedule property, and part of sale consideration, said to have been paid to the petitioner. The application was opposed by the petitioner, mainly on the ground that the prohibition contained in proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., gets attracted, since the trial of the suit has already commenced. Through its order dated 02-12-2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence this revision. Sri M.Y. Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the description of the property in a suit for specific performance has its own significance, and once the respondent has furnished the description of the suit schedule property, and issues were framed, on the basis of the pleadings, it is not at all open to her, to seek amendment thereof. Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner does not dispute the existence of agreement, and that the same is in relation to a specific item of property. He contends that, due to inadvertence, small mistake as to description of the property has crept into the plaint, that too, as regards the house number, and not boundaries, or extent. He submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, on account of the correction of the minor error. He further submits that similar mistake occurred as to the mentioning of amount paid to the petitioner. The suit filed by the respondent is the one, for specific performance of an agreement of sale. It is in respect of an item of immovable property. The correspondence that ensued between the parties discloses that the petitioner did not dispute the existence of the agreement. The controversy is, as to the compliance with the conditions of the agreement, by the respective parties. Numbering of the houses in Hyderabad City has taken place several decades ago. Even while the Municipal Corporation and the Government take credit for the so-called development, the fact remains that they do not even have the machinery or the mechanism for numbering of the houses. Whenever a new premises is constructed, sub-numbers with numericals and alphabets are added, leading to a situation, where the number becomes almost, a statement. It is stated that the agreement was in respect of premises bearing No.3-5-782/3/1 and 3-5-782/3/1/A, admeasuring 260 sq.yards at Gough Bungalow, King Kothi, Hyderabad. In the plaint, however the premises were mentioned as 3-5-782/2/3/1 and 3-5-782/3/1/A. In the body of the plaint, at one place, the second number was mentioned as 3/5/7682/3/1/A. The respondent wanted this is to be corrected. Another amendment she sought was about the amount, said to have been paid. It was pleaded that though a sum of Rs.10,36,000/- was paid, it was wrongly mentioned as Rs.8,50,000/-, and that figure was mentioned in the alternative relief of return of sale consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct, when he submits that the procedure for amendment of the pleadings has been tightened by adding proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. Severe restrictions are placed on amending the pleadings, in case the trial of the suit has started. I n REVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS v. NARAYANASWAMY & SONS, and PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA V. REPAKA VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have explained the purport of the amended provision and emphasized the need to restrict the occasion for amendment of the pleadings, once the trial in a suit has started. The fact, however, remains that the power of the Court is not totally taken away. Much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Even while keeping in mind that the scope of the adjudication gets minimised, with the framing of issues and commencement of trial, the trial Court must take into account, the purport of the amendment sought for, and the circumstances under which, the application is filed. Viewed in this context, it becomes clear that the petitioner did not intend to bring into the fold of the suit, any premises, which are not the subject-matter of the agreement. The lengthy description of the premises in numericals and letters has naturally resulted in some confusion on the part of the typist, and an inadvertent mistake has crept in. Therefore, the respondent cannot be denied the permission to amend the number of the premises, mentioned in different parts of the plaint. So far as the second limb of the amendment, viz., the amount representing the part of consideration, said to have been paid by the respondent; is concerned, it stands on a different footing. The respondent was very much aware as to the amount she wanted the petitioner to refund, in the event of the trial Court not being satisfied, to grant the relief of specific performance. The figure mentioned in the plaint, as it stood before amendment, was Rs.8,50,000/-. She wanted to amend that figure as Rs.10,36,000/- . Not only in the prayer portion, but also in different paragraphs in the plaint, the figure, Rs.8,50,000/- was mentioned. The petitioner filed written-statement on that basis, and the trial Court has also framed issues. At this stage, the respondent cannot be permitted to seek amendment thereof. Hence, the C.R.P is partly allowed, upholding the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.2424 of 2009, in so far as it permitted the respondent to amend the house number of the suit premises; and setting aside the amendment in relation to the amount, claimed as refund. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-07-2010. KO