2003 Supreme(SC) 493

2003(3) Supreme 607
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
Brijesh Kumar and B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Punjab National Bank -Appellant
versus
Indian Bank & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7072 of 2001
Decided on 22-4-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Mohit Chaudhary, Dhruv Mehta, Jagat Arora, Anand Misra, Ashim Sood, Advocates for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondents : K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, B.R. Narang and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
When there is some vagueness in the plaintiff s case regarding the claim and decree in terms of dollar or rupee, there can always be an amendment of the pleading to clear such confusions and vagueness.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151-Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993-Section 22-Amendment of plaint-Suit for money decree-Prayer for decree in foreign currency-Vagueness in plaintiff s plaint regarding claim and decree in terms of dollar or rupee-Amendment to clarify existing pleadings-Only rupee equivalent of dollar, is sought to be deleted-Amendment being more clarificatory in nature should be allowed-Delay in moving application would also not be material since proceedings are still not at trial stage.

       Held : The terms of the bank guarantee provide that US Dollar is the currency of account and payment in dollars for each and every sum at any time due from guarantor. The said bank guarantee was assigned in favour of the plaintiff appellant by Indo Europe. Notice of demand given by the plaintiff by letter dated 14.8.1996 also called upon the defendant No. 1 to pay the outstanding amount of USD 5,237,284.54. Again the demand was reiterated for payment in USD 5,237,284.54, the demand was repeated subsequently also for payment in dollars. Para 42 of the plaint quoted earlier clearly indicates that plaintiff is entitled to receive, recover and decree for USD 5,237,284.54. Again the appellant refers to para 46 of the plaint which has also been quoted earlier, praying for decree in USD and in the alternative, if not so decreed in dollars, then it may be allowed in equivalent value in rupees. Prayer (v) seeks a direction that decreetal amount be paid in US Dollars. In the background indicated above and the categorical averments made in the plaint including the prayer in Clause (v), it has been submitted that in effect and for all purposes, decree in dollars has been prayed for, which fact is very much in the knowledge of the defendant. True, as we feel, in some paragraphs and in the caption of the cause title of the suit, rupee equivalent of USD has been indicated first and dollar later as well as in prayer No. (i) and (ii) but that would not mean that there is no claim and prayer for decree in terms of dollars at all. We find it to be so by reading the plaint as a whole. It can, however, be said that there is some vagueness in the plaintiff s case regarding the claim and decree in terms of dollar or rupee but there can always be an amendment of the pleading to clear such confusions and vagueness. (Paras 13 & 14)

       Where the amendment merely clarifies an existing pleading and does not in substance add to or alter it, there is no good reason not to allow the same nor even the bar of limitation would come in the way. No fresh allegations of facts have been introduced/or added nor any fresh cause of action or new relief is sought to be added. A matter already contained in the original pleading can always be clarified and such an amendment should ordinarily be allowed and in such a case the question of bar of limitation would not be attracted. The case in hand is not one in which something fresh or new is sought to be added. The claim in terms of dollars has been made in different paragraphs of the plaint as well as in Clause (v) of the prayer clause, no new relief is sought to be added, only rupee equivalent of the dollar, is sought to be deleted and a clear prayer for decree in dollars would, resultantly remain there, by deletion of rupee component equivalent to the dollars. In our view, no question of introducing any new case, a new cause of action or seeking new relief which may be barred by limitation arises. It is an amendment more clarificatory in nature. (Para 14)

       The amendment would generally not be disallowed except where a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, there too it would be one of the factors for consideration or where it changes the nature of the suit itself or it is malafide or the other party cannot be placed in the same position had the plaint been originally filed correctly, that is to say, the other side has lost right of a valid defence by subsequent amendment. We find that no such element is present in the case in hand so as to disallow the amendment in the plaint. No undue advantage is sought to be taken as the claim in terms of dollars is mentioned in the plaint and the relief clause and the defendants are not to be taken by surprise. The amendment only clears the confusion, if any, as to the terms in which relief is sought. It does not revive a time barred and dead claim, nor changes the nature of the suit. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said to be malafide either. (Para 16)