The main legal point established in the judgment is the principles governing amendments to the plaint, emphasizing the need to bring the entire dispute within a single proceeding, perfect the cause of action pleaded, and reflect subsequent events without enlarging the scope of the suit.

I.P. MUKERJI, J.

1. Some 12 years after institution of the suit, the appellant plaintiff took out an application (GA 3115 of 2011) to effect some amendments to the plaint. By this passage of time the respondent Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. became ICICI Bank. The substitution of the name of the respondent ICICI bank was also sought and readily granted by the court. Reference to the respondent bank include the Bank of Rajasthan and ICICI bank, as applicable to the context.

2. There were other controversial amendments proposed by the plaintiff/appellant which were opposed by the respondent.

3. The application was heard before Justice Patherya and finally judgment was delivered on 11th July, 2014 partly allowing the application. Both the parties, are aggrieved by this judgment and order. The appellant/ plaintiff appeals to this court. The respondent has filed a cross-objection, challenging it.

4. The question which arises in this case is whether the appellant/plaintiff could claim the accruals from the pledged shares like bonus shares, dividend etc, twelve years after institution of the suit by amending the claim. Undoubtedly a suspicion will occur in the mind of any reasonable person regarding the maintainability of the claim, because, if a suit is filed now, claiming the amounts or the shares, limitation may come in the way.

5. Before taking a decision as to whether to allow the amendments prayed for, a look at the law is necessary.

6. If by the amendments the entire dispute between the parties is brought within the domain of a single proceeding, the amendment should be allowed. This is so because the law discourages multiplicity of proceedings and encourages quick and effective resolution of the entire disputes between the parties by a single decree or order.

7. Amendments have also been allowed to perfect the cause of action pleaded (see Seth Nanak Chand Shadiram v. Amin Chand Pyarilal reported in AIR 1970 Calcutta 8).

8. Amendments are allowed to bring on record relevant subsequent events with the objective of shortening litigation. (see Lekh Raj v. Muni Lal reported in (2001) 2 SCC 762, Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal reported in (2002) 2 SCC 256 and Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) and another v. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by Lrs. And another reported in (2004) 8 SCC 76). Amendments are also allowed to bring to the forefront the real controversy between the parties (see Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahmed and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1147, Pankaja and another v. Yellappa (ded) by Lrs. And another reported in (2004) 6 SCC 415 and South Konkan Distilleries & Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 632).

9. In those circumstances, events subsequent to filing of the suit and which are relevant for the purpose of its trial should be brought on record by amendment, instead of asking the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit.

10. But sometimes, a valuable right accrues in favour of the defendant and allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint would defeat such a right. In such a case the amendment should not be allowed. For example, suppose, the plaintiff has omitted to include a claim in his original claim. By the time he realises it, the claim has become barred by the laws of limitation. A separate suit would not lie. Thus a valuable right has accrued to the defendant. The amendment to include this barred claim should normally not be allowed. However, only when a proposed claim sought to be introduced by amendment, is patently barred by the laws of limitation should the court refuse to allow it. If the issue is triable, the court should not get into the controversy of limitation at the stage of hearing of the amendment application and leave it for adjudication at the trial of the suit. (see Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 Sc 699)

11. If the court finds that by the amendment the plaintiff is introducing an additional cause of action or a new cause of action the amendment should not be allowed esp