1. Suit for settlement of accounts based on a contract — Application under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC to amend plaint to quantify damages. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1780
1996(8) Supreme 375
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
M/s. C.S. Company & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
Kerala State Electricity Board -Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20703 of 1996
Decided on 29-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : C.N. Sree Kumar, S.V. Rajan and Shaju Francis, Advocates.
Important Points
Amending a plaint to quantify damages instead of seeking settlement of accounts does not constitute a new cause of action if the original suit already sought a declaration of liability for damages based on the same cause of action, and thus is not barred by limitation.
Subject
Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 6 Rule 17-Suit for settlement of accounts on basis of contract-Amendment to convert suit for damages quantifying damages-Relief originally sought for was to declare the liability of damages-Amendment does not constitute addition of any new cause of action-High Court was right in allowing amendment. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Amendment of a suit for settlement of accounts into a suit for quantified damages is impermissible if the right of recovery is barred by limitation. (Para 3 )
3. Amendment to quantify damages based on the original cause of action does not introduce a new cause of action or change the original cause of action. (Para 3 )
4. Amendment of a plaint to quantify damages based on the original cause of action does not constitute the introduction of a new cause of action. (Para 3 )
5. Special Leave Petition dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Does quantifying damages in a plaint amendment constitute the introduction of a new cause of action?
No, if the damages are based on the original cause of action and the original suit already sought to declare liability for damages to be ascertained, quantifying those damages does not introduce a new cause of action. (Para 3 )
7. Can a suit for settlement of accounts be amended to a suit for quantified damages after the limitation period for recovery has expired?
Yes, provided the amendment does not introduce a new cause of action or change the original cause of action, as the relief was already available under the original cause of action. (Para 3 )
ORDER
This special leave petition arises from the order of the learned single Judge made on August 2, 1996 in CRP No. 476/96.
2. The admitted position is that the respondent had filed the suit for settlement of accounts on the basis of a contract dated May 12,1983. He also sought for decree jointly and severally against the defendants 2 to 4 or against their estate for the amount due; for a declaration that the respondent is entitled to recover all the loss and damages from defendants and their assets when the same was ascertained, as stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint. An application has been filed on February 15, 1995 under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the plaint for converting the suit into one for damages quantifying the damages as stated in para 8A. The trial Court dismissed the application. In the revision, the High Court allowed it. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. It is contended for the petitioner that a suit merely for settlement of accounts and declaration that the respondent is entitled to recover damages from the defendant cannot be converted into a suit for damages in particular after the right of recovery is barred by limitation, i.e., a valuable right had accrued to the petitioners. The High Court, therefore, is not right in granting the amendment. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that what is sought to be amended is paragraph 8A and the suit is to recover the quantified amount as damages based upon the original cause of action, namely, the contract referred to hereinbefore. It is seen that the original suit was for settlement of accounts and fastening a liability jointly and severally against all the defendants and the assets and estates. The relief originally sought for also was to declare the liability of the damages to be ascertained and recoverable from them. Thus, it could be seen that as per the original cause of action, the relief now sought for was available in the suit itself. Instead of settlement of account, the respondent is now seeking for damages against the respondent and the damages instead of being ascertained were quantified in paragraph 8A of the plaint. The amendment does not constitute addition of any new cause of action. The respondent is not introducing any new cause of action nor it would change the cause of action as originally pleaded. Thus, there is neither change of cause of action nor introduction of any new cause of action after the bar of limitation. The High Court was, therefore, right in allowing the petition for amendment of the plaint.
4. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
*******
