JUDGMENT - VIJAY DAGA, J.:---This revision application is directed against the order dated 17th September 1997 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, on Exh. 47 in Special Civil Suit No. 172 of 1994 rejecting an application seeking amendment to the plaint.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision may be noticed as under :

The plaintiff (applicant herein) has filed suit challenging the bill dated 6th April 1994 for the electricity consumption charges amounting to Rs. 2,20,300/-. The plaintiff sought declaration that the said bill dated 6th April 1994 demanding Rs. 2,20,300/- from the plaintiff was without any authority of law and was not binding on him.

3. On being noticed, the defendants (respondents herein) appeared and filed its written statement contending therein that the bill also includes an amount of interest right from the year 1993. The above suit was posted for evidence from time to time. The plaintiff sought adjournments after adjournments. The trial Court recorded in its order that the plaintiff sought adjournment by filing applications at Exh. 41, Exh. 43, Exh. 44, Exh. 45 and Exh. 46. Thus right from the month of September 1996 to January 1997, the plaintiff sought number of adjournments and thereafter moved an application for amendment of the plaint. The trial Court, therefore, found that the application was not bona fide. The trial Court also observed that the claim sought to be included in the plaint was barred by limitation.

4. At this juncture, it would not be out of place to mention that challenge to the bill dated 6th April 1994 demanding an amount of Rs, 2,20,300/- was already set up in the plaint. The amendment has no effect of either reducing the claim or increasing the same. What was being sought by amendment was nothing but the explanation leading to the calculation of the amount already included in the suit claim. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there were no seeds of the proposed amendment in the plaint. The plaintiff was trying to clarify and amplify the calculations of the amount of bill which were already included in the subject matter of the suit. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that by proposed amendment any claim barred by limitation was being brought within limitation. Consequently, I do not find that the observations made by the trial Court in this behalf are correct and proper.

5. So far as conduct of the plaintiff was concerned, it was brought on record that after seeking five adjournment the plaintiffs had moved an application for amendment and thereby tried to protract the litigation. The learned Counsel for the applicant/original plaintiff pointed out that the applicant himself is interested in seeking that his suit be decided expeditiously as his factory is closed. However, the fact remains that the application for amendment was moved after seeking series of adjournments right from September 1996 to January 1997.

6. Considering the nature of the amendment and the rights of the plaintiff involved in the suit, the interest of justice requires that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend his plaint. The Supreme Court said in (Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply)1, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1267 that however, negligent or careless may have been the first error or omission the amendment should be allowed, if it does not cause injustice to others. I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment would not cause any injustice to other side if it is allowed. The Supreme Court in (A.K. Gupta Sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation)2, 1996(1) S.C.R. 796 held :

"The general rule, no doubt, is that party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit or new case or cause of action is barred : (Weldon v. Neale)3, 1987(19) Q.B.D. 394. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amount

Click Here to Read the rest of this document