Home / Supreme Court / Judgments / 2025 / Diary 10268

PALAYPU KISHAN PRASAD v. GORLE REKHA RANI

Supreme Court of India | Diary 10268/2025

Status

ROP - of Main Case

Decided On

17-04-2025

Bench

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

Petitioner

PALAYPU KISHAN PRASAD

Respondent

GORLE REKHA RANI

Primary Holding

An amendment to a plaint at the appellate stage that introduces a new relief of specific performance, when the original suit sought only money recovery, is rightly rejected as time-barred and as fundamentally altering the nature of the suit.

Download PDF Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

1 ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.15 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) …………………….D. No.10268/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-08-2024 in IA No. 2/2024 in AS No.417/2024 and 02-09-2024 in AS No. 417/2024 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad] PALAYPU KISHAN PRASAD PETITIONER(S) VERSUS GORLE REKHA RANI RESPONDENT(S) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 91461/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No. 91458/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 17-04-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Petitioner(s) Mr. T V Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Akhil Ranganadhan, Adv. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Mourya, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghuvamsy D., AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. The delay of 109 days in filing and 15 days in refiling the present petitions are condoned in the facts and circumstances of the cases. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 91461/2025 and 91458/2025 are allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.79,00,000/-(Rupees seventy-nine lakhs) under an

2 agreement to sale. Subsequently, at the appellate stage, the petitioner filed an application for the amendment of the plaint so as to claim the relief of specific performance of the agreement. The said application has been rejected by the Appellate Court both on the ground that the relief as claimed by amendment is time barred and that it changes the entire nature of the suit. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case(s), we are not convinced that any case for interference is made out in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 5. The present petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SNEHA DAS) (NIDHI MATHUR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India