Amendments to pleadings are permissible if they do not alter the nature of the suit; courts have discretion to allow amendments to clarify existing claims even when time-barred under special circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bibhash Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.Nos.1 to 5 as well as Mr. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.Nos.6 and 7.

2. By Order dated 10.12.2024, the service of notice upon the O.P.Nos.8 to 11 has been dispensed with as they are the performa Opposite parties.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Order dated 19.07.2022 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.334 of 2019 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-XII, Ranchi, whereby the application filed for amendment by the petitioner has been rejected. The further prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 21.7.2023 passed in Civil Misc Application No.778 of 2022 arising out of Suit No.729 of 2018 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division -XII, Ranchi.

4. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Original (Damage) Suit No.729 of 2018 was instituted before the learned Sub Judge-I, Ranchi, against the defendant /respondent nos.1 to 7 praying therein to direct the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.2 Crores (two crores) as the compensation for damage caused to the petitioner/ plaintiff by the defamatory actions of the defendants/ respondents and to pay Rs.1 Crores 50 lacs (one crore fifty lacs) as compensation for causing economic loss. Hence a decree for total of Rs.3 Crores 50 lacs (three crores fifty lacs) only as compensation was prayed in the said suit. He submits that the name of father of the defendant nos.2 and 5 were not known and that was found later on and in view of that, the petition has been filed for inserting the correct name of the defendant nos.2 and 5. However, the learned court has erroneously allowed the same to correct the name of father of defendant nos.3 and 4. He submits that in view of that, the said order is fit to be rectified by this Court. He further submits that another amendment was sought for correcting the cause of action that is the first cause of action, 28.4.2016, however, the learned court has rejected the same on the erroneous ground. He submits that in the plaint the cause of action is disclosed 27.4.2016 and the second date of cause of action is 29.01.2018, however, inadvertently, it was wrote as 28.4.2018. He submits that the cause of action is also of 22.01.2018 and 29.01.2018. He submits that the disclosure is already there, however, due to typographical error such wrong year has been typed and only to that effect the amendment was sought which is formal in nature as such, the said order may kindly be set aside and appropriate order may kindly be passed. He relied in the case of A.K.Gupta and Sons Limited v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 (SC) 96 and refers to paragraph nos.7, 8, 11, 23, 27, 36 and 42 of the said judgment, are quoted below:

“7. It is not in dispute that at the date of the application for amendment, a suit for a money claim under the contract was barred. The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new case or cause of action is barred: Welch v. Neale(1887) 19 QBD 394 But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after