The duty of the court to grant relief based on the existence of an allegation, rather than proving the allegation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2021, in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.5503 of 2019 on the file of the XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai insofar as the enhancement of damages is concerned and consequently to allow the amendment application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.5503/2019.)

1. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for defamation claiming damages (originally before this Court in C.S.No.5 of 2015) of Rs.25,10,000/- against the first defendant. The defendants 2 to 4 are the Media, and the plaintiffs seek a decree of prohibitory injunction not to publish any defamatory statement about them. Subsequently, they moved the original side of this Court in A.No.2085 of 2019 for amending the plaint, seeking a higher damage of Rs.1,00,10,000/- against the first defendant and also for a relief of mandatory injunction.

2. While the matter was pending before this Court, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court came to be enhanced and accordingly, the suit came to be transferred to the City Civil Court. The pending application in A.No.2085/2019 was also transferred to the City Civil Court. The suit was taken on file before the XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.5503/2019, and the application came to be taken on record in I.A.No.1/2019. The learned trial Judge heard the matter, and partly allowed the application and permitted amendment of plaint by moulding the prayer for mandatory injunction newly sought into one for prohibitory injunction. As regards payment seeking enhancement of damages, the trial court dismissed it. This part of the order of the trial court is now under challenge in this revision.

3. The line of reasoning of the learned trial judge for dismissing I.A.No.1/2019 is two-fold:

* That the plaintiff had filed the application for amendment in A.No.2085/2019 when the suit was pending before this Court only after the notification changing its pecuniary jurisdiction was made and hence the application is intended to retain the suit before the High Court which according to the trial court constituted an abuse of judicial process.

* So far as the allegation of the plaintiffs that amendment seeking enhancement of damages is founded on certain publication made by the defendants are in violation of order of interim injunction passed by this Court etc., is concerned, the trial court delved briefly on the merit and has held that neither the order of this Court, nor that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP disclose that there was a finding that the alleged statements are defamatory, and that whether the publications attributed to the defendants and alleged to be constituting defamation could be decided only at the end of the trial.

4.1. Challenging this order in I.A.No.1/2019, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this revision. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has put forth the following points of arguments as below :

(a) The amendment to the suit has become necessary due to certain subsequent events that took place during the pendency of the suit. It is on the basis of which, the damages originally sought, was revised. In particular, he added that this Court has passed an order of injunction against the defendants not to publish any defamatory statement against the plaintiffs, still they continued to do so.

(b) Indeed, in terms of Order VI Rule 17 CPC., amendment is not permissible after trial has commenced, whereas in the instant case, an application seeking amendment was filed even couple of years prior to the filing of the written statement by any of the defendants.

(c) Thirdly, the learned District Judge did not appreciate that, at any rate he will not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs claim of damages of Rs.1,00,10,000/- Even in the best of circumstances, he can award damages only upto Rs.1.0 crore, but for doing so, he may still have to