Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
K. Ganapathy
Versus
M/s. Sakthi Sugar Limited
C.R.P. PD. No. 1067 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided on : 27-07-2012
Amendment - Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 - Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - [Order 6 Rule 17, Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963] - The court discussed the amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to amend the Plaint to claim damages. The court referred to Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance to claim compensation for its breach. The court emphasized that a pre-trial amendment can be allowed liberally by the court of law and that an amendment in pleading can be allowed at any stage in the interest of justice. The court concluded that the amendment seeking damages was maintainable and did not introduce any new cause of action, affirming the trial court's decision to allow the amendment application.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance, appointment of a Receiver, and permanent injunction. Subsequently, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to amend the Plaint to claim damages of Rs.53,000 with subsequent interest. The Petitioner/Defendant opposed the amendment, arguing that it would alter the nature and character of the suit and was barred by the Law of Limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment seeking damages was maintainable in law as per Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that a pre-trial amendment can be allowed liberally by the court of law. The court held that the amendment did not introduce any new cause of action and affirmed the trial court's decision to allow the amendment application.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the amendment seeking damages, the nature and character of the suit, and the applicability of the Law of Limitation to the proposed amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment seeking damages was maintainable as per Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that a pre-trial amendment can be allowed liberally by the court of law. The court emphasized that an amendment in pleading can be allowed at any stage in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to allow the amendment application. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
1. The Petitioner/Defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 11.02.2010 in I.A.No.1213 of 2009 in O.S.No.207 of 2008 passed by the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Erode, in allowing the amendment application [filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code praying permission of the Court to amend the Plaint].
2. The Learned Principal Sub Judge, Erode, while passing the order in I.A.No.1213 of 2009 on 11.02.2010, has, inter alia, held that 'the Revision Petitioner/Respondent (Defendant) has violated the contract and it is not correct to state that separate suit has to be filed because of the reason that the right to claim damages in the plaint and to seek necessary amendment the Respondent/Plaintiff has got right' and viewed in that perspective, allowed the application without costs.
3. Being dissatisfied against the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.1213 of 2009 dated 11.02.2010 in allowing the application filed by the Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has projected the instant Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant vehemently contends that the proposed amendment sought for by the Respondent/ Plaintiff in I.A.No.1213 of 2009 to claim damages will alter the nature and character of the suit and also that the said amendment is barred by Law of Limitation.
5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant submits that even on the date of filing of the suit by the Respondent/Plaintiff, the Petitioner/Defendant has harvested the sugarcane crop on 28.04.2008, but failed to take any steps to modify the relief and after 1 ½ years the present amendment to amend the plaint has been sought for, which is highly belated and the same is impermissible in law.
6. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant that the present amendment sought for in the interlocutory application will alter the nature and character of the suit by introducing a new/fresh cause of action which is not legally sustainable in law.
7. Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed a suit against the Revision Petitioner/Defendant originally seeking the relief of specific performance, praying for the relief of appointment of a Receiver and for granting the relief of permanent injunction.
8. The Revision Petitioner/Defendant has filed a detailed written statement inter alia stating that there is no cause of action for the Respondent/Plaintiff to file the suit and also that there is no standing crop in the field for harvest and that the calculations made by the Respondent/Plaintiff are imaginary one.
9. It transpires that the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1213 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission of the trial Court to amend the Plaint, seeking damages of Rs.53,000/-with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
10. A perusal of the contents of the affidavit in I.A.No.1213 of 2009 shows that the Respondent/Plaintiff set out in detail, the damages sought for by him from the Revision Petitioner/Defendant and he has estimated the loss/damages at Rs.53,000/-.
11. A counter has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant among other things mentioning that there is no Court order restraining the Revision Petitioner/Defendant/Respondent for cutting the sugarcane crop and further that he is an Agriculturist and that he has not violated any contract and therefore, not liable to pay any damages.
12. In short, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has taken a plea that the damage sought for by the Respondent/Plaintiff is to be assessed by means of filing a separate/independent suit and inasmuch as the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is only for specific performance, t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
