Back
High Court Of Calcutta
MAHEMMAD HABEEB SHAMS ANSARI
SUNIL KUMAR SEN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
G. A. 1676 Of 1999
Decided On : 09/17/1999
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - NEW CAUSE OF ACTION - LIMITATION - AMENDMENT INTRODUCING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION AND PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY ARE BARRED BY TIME, SUCH AMENDMENTS CANNOT BE ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include new claims for damages, loss of profit, and space occupied by damaged transformers. The proposed amendments were based on new facts and a new cause of action.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action and set up an additional case. The court found that the new claims were barred by the statutory period of limitation and that the amendments would cause irremediable prejudice to the defendant.
Issues: Whether the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles governing amendment of pleadings, as laid down in various Supreme Court judgments, to hold that the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action and were barred by limitation. The court held that amendments introducing a new cause of action, particularly when they are barred by time, cannot be allowed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint.
( 1 ) THE instant application has been assigned to this court.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the applicant in the instant case and filed the instant application praying for amendment of the plaint in the manner indicated in red ink in a copy thereof, annexed to the application.
( 3 ) DESPITE best efforts, it is stated by Mr. Nirmal Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. R. P. Banerjee for the respondent/defendant, the affidavit-in-opposition could not be filed despite sufficient opportunity and time having been afforded by court in that behalf. Mr. Mitra, however, made oral submissions opposing the said application for amendment of the plaint.
( 4 ) THE suit as originally filed by the plaintiff was for a decree for specific delivery of 5 (five) electric transformers mentioned in scheduled 'a' to the plaint; decree for Rs. 5,53,075/- towards loss and damages suffered by plaintiff, particulars whereof were mentioned in scheduled 'b' to the plaint. In scheduled 'b' the quantification of damage to the said five electric transformers have been specified. In the alternative, the plaintiff claimed a decree for the sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- being the value of the said transformers in May 1973 when the goods ought to have been delivered to the plaintiff. The said amount was claimed as damages for negligence.
( 5 ) THE foundation for the said claims was that on or about October 2, 1972, the plaintiff delivered five electric transformers for carriage by railway at Railway risk rates from Bhadroswarghat Railway Yard to Udaypur in the State of Rajasthan. On February 17, 1973, the said transformers were rebooked for carriage by railway from Udaypur to Bhadreswarghat. On 21st April 1973, the railways intimated the plaintiff that the said transformers had arrived at Bhadreswarghat Railway Yard. On inspection, the same were found to be in completely damaged conditions. A joint inspection was agreed to be undertaken to ascertain the extent of damages, which the defendants failed to do, and, therefore, the said suit.
( 6 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the said transformers were required for hire at Udaypur at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per day for four (4) years starting from 1st November 1972. The plaintiff, it is claimed in the instant application is entitled to loss of profit and/or hire charges which it was to receive from the hirer. The plaintiff discovered certain documents on or about 28th February 1999. The said documents marked B, C and D to the instant application, it is averred, are relevant for the purpose of the suit and required to be disclosed. The plaintiff, therefore, sought amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional paragraphs 14a to 14f.
( 7 ) IN the proposed paragraph 14a, the plaintiff has claimed that he had to pay and bear as and by way of damages a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the hirer for breach of contract. The plaintiff claimed reimbursement of the said sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest from April 7, 1975 to April 6, 1999 at 18% per annum amounting to Rs. 21,60,000/ -. The aggregate amount claimed on this account is Rs. 26,60,000/ -. Future interest has also been claimed on the said sum.
( 8 ) IN paragraphs 14b and 14c, plaintiff has claimed loss of profit, which the plaintiff would have earned from the hirer at Rs. 11,000/- per day for four years. The particulars have been set out in the proposed paragraphs 14c as under; Particulars Rs. (a) Principal Amount Rs. 1,60,60,000. 00 (b) Interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from the date Of termination (1. 8. 73 to 1. 4. 1999 ). (25 years 8 months ). Rs. 8,74,06,400. 00 Total: Rs. 10,34,66,400. 00
( 9 ) IN the proposed paragraph 14d, the plaintiff states that the said sum claimed is in addition to its other claims.
( 10 ) IN paragraph 14e, the plaintiff states that the Advocate, Receiver lifted the transformers to the go-down provided by the plaintiff but as the same could not be sold, the transformers are lying and t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
