A suit for settlement of accounts cannot be amended and converted into a suit for damages, especially when the proposed amendment would set up a new case that is time-barred and prejudicial to the defendant's rights.

1. he plaintiff in a suit for settlement of accounts is the revision petitioner.

2. is application, I. A..3854/87 under Order VI R.17 C. P. C. seeking the following amendments, has been dismissed by the order under challenge:-"Title.

The word "Accounts" to be amended as "damages". 2. Relief:

(A) "A decree allowing the plaintiff to realise the sum of money as found by the court due to the plaintiff from defendant by settling the accounts towards agreement No.29/ 81-82 for the work of seven point programme-construction of burial ground in Kottukulam in Venganoor Panchayat, including all items of works executed, materials supplied for the purpose of work, interest and compensation for damages and refund of security deposit from defendant's assets both movable and immovable is to be amended as:

"A decree allowing the plaintiff to realise Rs. 72,130.77 as per the statement of accounts given below from defendant's assets both movable and immovable".

3. Prayer B.

From the 2nd line portion from "for the money due to the plaintiff from defendant as per Prayer A '3rd line) is to be deleted and the following is to be inserted:

"for the principal amount of Rs. 59,041.77"

4. A new paragraph is to be inserted below prayer E as Table:#1

5. Valuation and court fee 1st line portion from "Prayer" to seventh line upto settlement of accounts" is to be deleted and to insert "suit is valued to Rs. 72,130.77 and a court fee of Rs. 7,194/- is levied and paid under S.22 of Kerala Court-fee and Suit Valuation Act X of 1960".

Going by the pleadings particularly those in Para.10 of the plaint, the suit indisputably is one for settlement of accounts. A reference in this connection to the reliefs prayed for in the plaint is also relevant. They are:

"(A) A decree allowing the plaintiff to realise the sum of money as found by the court due to the plaintiff from defendant by settling the accounts towards agreement No. 23/81-82 for the work of "Seven Point Programme-construction of a burial ground in Kattukulam in Venganoor Panchayat, including all items of works executed, materials supplied for the purpose of the work, interest and compensation for damages and refund of security deposit from the defendant's assets both movable and immovable;

(B) A decree allowing the plaintiff to realise 12% interest for the money due to the plaintiff from the defendant as per prayer (A) from the date of suit to the date of decree from the defendant's assets both movable and immovable;

(C) A decree allowing the plaintiff to realise 6% interest for the principal sum from the date of decree til! final realisation from the defendant's assets both movable and immovable;

(D) A decree allowing the plaintiff to realise his costs including advocate's fee from defendant's assets both movable and immovable;

(E) Such other reliefs such as appointment of commission, interim injunction etc., which the plaintiff may pray for and which the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may also be granted".

There can therefore be no doubt that the suit is one for settlement of accounts. That the petitioner was conscious of the fact that the suit was for settlement of accounts, is further clear from the statements in the petition for amendment. It has been stated therein that the amendment was necessitated because this court in S. S. Nair v. Travancore Devaswom Board (1987 K. L. J. 838) has observed thus:

"... A contractor to whom amounts are due from the contracting party for breach of contract, is bound to sue for damages. There is no obligation on the part of the contracting party to render accounts to the contractor. The plaintiff's remedy was therefore, only to file a suit for realisation of a definite sum of money by way of damages and not for settlement of accounts". (Head Notes)

That means the plaintiff, on seeing this decision, was convinced that a suit for settlement of accounts is not maintainable and therefore he wanted the same to be converted into a suit for damages.

3. The learn