SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery/damages against the defendants. The plaintiff claims to be a reputed company having experience in assisting foreign companies worldwide for image building, public relations, marketing information, etc. in the power industry. Defendant No. 1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying power and plant equipments and services. It is alleged that BHEL is the main competitor of defendant No. 1 and in order to effectively face competition from BHEL defendant No. 1 was desirous of forming a joint Venture with another public sector company, NTPC.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is stated to have approached the plaintiff for availing of its liaison services to ultimately have a Joint Venture of defendant No. 1 with NTPC and towards this object an agreement was arrived at on 15. 7. 1998. Defendant no. 1 agreed to pay the plaintiff a total consideration of Rs. 20. 00 lakh as upfront service charges on entering into a suitable arrangement with NTPC and a further sum of Rs. 5. 00 crore upon the projects being awarded to defendant No. 1 or the proposed Joint Venture.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that as a result of its endeavour NTPC-ABB alstom Power Services Limited was formed in September 1999 but the upfront payment of Rs. 20. 00 lakh was never released. Instead defendant No. 1 persuaded and pressurized the plaintiff that an amount of up to Rs. 5. 00 crore over and above would be released on allotment of Korba Amarkantak Rehabilitation Project. Since nothing was paid, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery.

( 4 ) THE suit has been filed for recovery of the amount of Rs. 20. 00 lakh along with interest @ 18 per cent per annum. A further prayer made was for enquiry into the accounts of losses, compensation and damages due to the plaintiff over and above the amount of Rs. 20. 00 lakh. The defendants contested the suit and issues were framed on 28. 8. 2006. On the same date itself the parties were directed to file their list of witnesses within six weeks and for the plaintiff to file the affidavit of evidence within eight weeks. Thus the affidavit of evidence were required to be filed on or before 23. 10. 2006. A date was also fixed by the same order for the suit to be listed on 4. 12. 2006 for recording of evidence.

( 5 ) THE present application has been filed on 17. 11. 2006 seeking amendment of the plaint. In the application it is stated that in paragraph 10 of the plaint the plaintiff has already made averments to the effect that an amount further due over and above Rs. 20. 00 lakh cannot be quantified at the stage of filing of the suit as the same is dependent on the details and size of projects awarded to the defendants or the Joint Venture. The prayer for release of payment of Rs. 5. 00 crore was also not specifically made as clear dates of awarding of the subsequent work to the Joint Venture Company was not available even to the defendants. The plaintiff claims to have come to know that the defendants have bagged four major contracts worth Rs. 3,300. 00 million of which the plaintiff was unaware at the time of the filing of the suit. In this behalf a brochure (Annexure P-1) of the Joint Venture is sought to be relied upon.

( 6 ) THE amendments thus are prayed for by insertion of paragraphs 10a and 29a as under:

"10a. That the plaintiff has now come to know in definite terms that the defendants have received technically and commercially clear orders as per brochure of the Joint Venture Company as envisaged in the Agreement dated 15. 7. 1998 between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It was solely due to professional expertise/assistance/support of the plaintiff company to support the marketing efforts which has led to the success of the Joint Venture Company. The defendants, in terms of the Agreement dated 15. 7. 1998 are liable to pay a sum of Rs. Five Crores to the plaintiff. " Copy of the said brochure is annexed herewith collectively and m