2005 Supreme(Del) 475
High Court Of Delhi
ABN AMRO BANK NV - Appellant
Versus
RATAN LAL VARMA - Respondent
I.A. : 2117 of 2001
Decided On : 04/26/2005
AMAN USMAN, B.B.SAWHNEY, G.L.N.MURTHY, P.A.S.RAO
The court emphasized that proposed amendments to a suit should not change the cause of action and should be permissible under the law.
Headnote:
Amendment - Lease Agreement - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - [Order 37, Indian Contract Act, 1872] - The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the suit to reflect the present factual position, individual liability of defendants, and an alternative prayer. The court held that the proposed amendments did not change the cause of action and were permissible under the law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to amend the suit to reflect the present factual position, individual liability of defendants, and an alternative prayer. The defendants vehemently opposed the amendment. The suit pertained to a lease agreement and agreements with other parties for office space.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the suit, stating that the proposed amendments did not change the cause of action and were permissible under the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed amendments changed the cause of action and were permissible under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proposed amendments did not change the cause of action and were permissible under the law.
Final Decision: IA No. 258/2004 was allowed, and the plaintiff was permitted to file an amended plaint within 4 weeks.
( 1 ) PLAINTIFF seeks to amend the suit as under:
" (I) to add the words in his personal capacity and in the description of the defendant No. 2 in the cause-title and Memo of Parties immediately before the words in his capacity as coparcener. . . . . . (ii) to add the following para numbered as 23a after the present para 23 so as to correctly reflect the present factual position: 23a. However, upon institution of the present suit, the plaintiff deposited the keys of the suit premises with the Registrar of this hon ble Court after being granted permission by this Hon ble court to do so, and stopped maintaining watch and ward at the premises. (iii) to add the following sub-para at the end of the present para 24: without prejudice to the foregoing, in any case, as on 31. 1. 2001 a sum of Rs. 21,42,951. 50 as principal outstanding balance amount of security deposit paid under the Lease Agreement dated 12. 10. 1994 was admittedly due to the plaintiff from the defendant No. 1. Likewise, a sum of Rs. 34,12,500/- as outstanding principal balance of security deposit paid under the Agreement dated 12. 10. 94 relating to lease/hire of furniture, fixtures and fittings was admittedly due to the plaintiff from the defendant No. 3. (iv) to add the following alternative prayer (aa) after the present prayer (a): (aa) in the event that this Hon ble Court, for any reason, takes the view that prayer (a) cannot be granted, then in the alternative, pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and jointly and severally against the defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 21,42,951. 50 and against the defendant No. 3 for sum of Rs. 34,12,500/- in each case along with interest thereon @ 16% p. a. from 1. 2. 2001 till realisation. "
( 2 ) DEFENDANTS vehemently oppose the amendment.
( 3 ) THOUGH suit pertains to the year 2001 it is at preliminary stage. Issues have not yet been framed in the suit.
( 4 ) IN brief, case of the plaintiff is that it was desirous of taking office space on lease and identify 4550 sq. feet area on the 9th floor of Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan at Barakhamba Road, 3650 sq. feet are out of 4550 sq. feet belonged to defendant no. 1 and the remaining 900 sq. feet belonged to Gopal Das Estate and Housing pvt. Ltd. vide two separate lease deeds executed simultaneously and having identical terms, plaintiff took on lease the floor space from the respective owners.
( 5 ) AS per the plaintiff No. 2, Dhruv Varma is a coparcener of defendant No. 1 and Ratan Lai Varma, father of defendant No. 2 is the Karta of defendant No. 1.
( 6 ) PLAINTIFF further pleads that defendants 1 and 2 executed the lease deed in respect of 3650 sq. ft. area and at the time of the lease plaintiff gave Rs. 65,70,000/- as interest-free refundable security to be returned at the time vacant possession was restored. Under the other lease deed plaintiff took 900 sq. ft. of a space from Gopal Das Estate and Housing Pvt. Ltd. and likewise deposited Rs. 16,20,000/- as interest-free security deposit with said party. Plaintiff had to attorn to one J. K. Varma in respect of 900 sq. ft. area as he purchased the same from Gopal Das Estate and Housing Pvt. Ltd.
( 7 ) IT is the further case set up by the plaintiff that simultaneously with execution of the 2 lease deeds, plaintiff and defendant No. 3 executed an agreement on 12. 10. 1994 whereunder plaintiff took on lease fixtures and fittings at a monthly hire. Plaintiff deposited Rs. 27,30,000/- as interest-free refundable deposit with said defendant. Additionally plaintiff entered into agreements with 3 other parties for external maintenance, air-conditioning and internal housing kept for the office space.
( 8 ) PERIOD of lease having expired and so also the period of the agreement with defendant No. 3 as well as 3 other parties, parties extended the duration of the lease and other agreements at increased rates and plaintiff increased the quantum of refundable security, deposit, enhancing the same to Rs. 82,12,500/-