Sangavva Vs. Jaherabi

civil procedure code, 1908 (central act no. 5 of 1908) - order 6 rule 17 - where no legal right accrued & no prejudice to other side, amendment to be allowed.; i.a. filed seeking amendment to lake up one more stand on a different set of facts being bonafide purchaser for value without notice of title:; no legal right has accrued to the plaintiff. the amendment if allowed will not change the character of the suit. it will not in any way prejudice the plaintiff. even if it is shown that there is delay in filing i.a., that is not a ground to reject it. - section 69 & bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1984, rule 13: [ajit j.gunjal, j] lease cum sale agreement allottee appointing third party as his lawful attorney to deal with site with power even to transfer site, by executing power of attorney held, authority is not justified in declining to execute registered sale deed in favour of vendee, in respect of sale of site effected by holder of power of attorney of allottee on ground that in terms of deed of said power of attorney, holder thereof is competent only to transfer site and not specifically authorised to sell it. directions issued to b.d.a. to execute necessary sale deed. - the learned munsiff has failed to notice this fact. the two authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents are clearly distinguishable and have no application to the present case......defendant-3 set up the defence that he has full title and is exclusively in possession.3. defendant-3 filed i.a.no. iii under order 6 rule 17 c.p.c., before the learned munsiff and prayed for permission to take up one more stand on a new set of facts viz., he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the plaintiff's title. the learned munsiff rejected i.a.no. iii and refused to allow the amendment.4. defendant-3 has challenged the order on i.a.no. iii passed by the learned munsiff,5. it is obvious that defendant-3 prayed that he should be permitted to take up one more stand by way of defence for the same relief, on a different on the same set of facts. the learned munsiff has failed to notice this fact. the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision of this court reported in : air1986 kant109 palthur honnur saheb v. bopanna annapurnamma. what was considered in this decision is section 16(c) of the specific relief act. it is laid down by this court relying on the supreme court authority that if lapse of time has barred the remedy, the court should ordinarily refuse such amendment. that is not the position here.6. the learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the decision of this court reported in 1982(1) kar.l.j. 517 reddappa t. v. n.s. prabhakar. what was laid down in this case is that an amendment which deprives the party of a legal right accrued to him, cannot be granted. in the instant case, no such legal right has accrued to the plaintiff. the two authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents are clearly distinguishable and have no application to the present case. the learned munsiff was wrong in not allowing the amendment. the amendment, if allowed, will not change the character of the suit. it will not in anyway prejudice the plaintiff. it is open to the plaintiff to show that the stand taken by the defendant-3 through the amendment is false. further, even if it is shown that there is delay in.....