Amendments to the plaint may be allowed if necessitated by subsequent developments, are necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy, and do not completely change the nature of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN DATTA, J.

I.A. No. 2227/2022 (for amendment of plaint) and I.A. No. 8358/2022 (for amendment of plaint)

1. These are applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. The prayers sought in the suit, as originally filed, are as under:

“(A) Pass a judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of damages of Rs. 2,01,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores One Lakh only) against the defendants jointly and severally, along with pendelite and future interest @ 9% per annum till the date of full realization of entire amount.

(B) Grant a Decree of permanent or appropriate Injunctions restraining the defendant no. 1 from removing him from his job due to inability to work as he was working prior to aforesaid accident else plaintiff will also be entitled for damages as per Para No. 13 of the plaint and appropriate court fees shall be paid on such eventuality at the appropriate stage.

(C) Declare right to livelihood of the plaintiff as right to life in view of Constitutional Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 Supp. (2) SCR 51 and consequently restrain the defendant no. 1 by issuing Mandatory Injunction or appropriate injunctions from taking away livelihood of the plaintiff.

(D) Allow the costs of the suit.

(E) Pass such other and further orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3. The suit was occasioned on account of an accident in the lift at office premises of defendant no. 1 (where the plaintiff was employed), which is stated to have resulted in serious spinal injuries to the plaintiff.

4. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed an I.A. No. 8881/2018 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, wherein he sought certain interim orders including, inter-alia, that the defendant no. 1 be restrained from terminating the plaintiff’s services during the pendency of the present suit and also seeking a direction that the defendant no. 1 be directed to give medical benefits to the plaintiff. In the said I.A. No. 8881/2018, an interim order dated 11.07.2019 came to be passed containing the following direction:

“9. There is a reasonable apprehension in the Plaintiff’s mind that due to his injury, which prevents him from doing long sittings, and filing of the present suit, he may suffer adverse consequences and his services may be terminated during the pendency of the suit. The Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in his favour. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Plaintiff’s services shall not be terminated.”

5. The aforesaid I.A. No. 8881/2018 was disposed of on 27.07.2018, in the following terms:

“1. Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1 submits that the Plaintiff has written to Defendant No. 1 that he would be joining back to work from 1st August, 2018. She further submits that in view of the accident which had occurred, the Plaintiff was give complete 6 months fully paid leave with reimbursement of all his medical expenses and at the moment, there is no intention of removing him from the employment.

2. In view of the statement by learned counsel for Defendant No. 1, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is disposed of taking the said statement on record.”

6. Despite the aforesaid order, the defendant no. 1 terminated the services of the plaintiff. This impelled the plaintiff to file I.A. No. 4962/2019 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the defendant no. 1 and seeking withdrawal of the termination notice dated 29.03.2019 (the ‘first termination’). Vide order dated 04.04.2019, passed in the aforesaid I.A. No. 4962/2019, it was directed as under:

“12. Since Defendant No. 1 had expressed its intention not to terminate the Plaintiff at that stage, the interim application was disposed of, accepting the said statement. As Defendant No. 1 had stated before the Court that it did not