The court ruled that amendments to a plaint seeking damages can be allowed even if time-barred, provided they do not introduce new causes of action, emphasizing the importance of contextual analysis under the Civil Procedure Code.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned Principal Commercial Court at Egmore in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in COS No.221 of 2023 dated 08.11.2024.

2. The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner. COS.No.221 of 2023 was originally presented as C.S.No.321 of 2014. The relief sought for in the suit is as follows:

“a) For permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, his men and agents from releasing the Telugu version of the film “Nimirndhu Nil” titled as “Jandapai Kapiraju” starring Nani, Amala Paul and others in any part of the word without liquidating the compensative sum of Rs.57,00,00/- to the plaintiff;”

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into an agreement with the first defendant on 13.09.2012 for distribution and exhibition of a Tamil film “Nimirnthu Nil” in foreign territories. He alleges that the first defendant has stated that the movie would be released on 07.03.2014, but the movie was not released on that date. It was released on 09.03.2014. On account of the delay in release, he had suffered damages to the tune of Rs.57,00,000/-. Hence, he came forward with the suit pleading that the first defendant should not release its next production titled “Jandapai Kapiraju” without liquidating the amount of Rs.57,00,000/-. The suit was originally presented before the original side of this Court in 2014. Due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil Court at Chennai and re-numbered as O.S.No.2232 of 2020.

4. The written statement filed by the first defendant disputed the allegations made in the plaint. The plea of the first defendant, inter alia, is that the plaintiff was not put to any loss on account of the alleged delay in release of the movie and that there is no material to substantiate the claim of a sum of Rs.57,00,000/- as damages. He added that the plaintiff has no legitimate or legal claim against the Telugu film “Jandapai Kapiraju” and therefore, the issue of granting an order of injunction restraining its release does not arise.

5. On the basis of these pleadings, issues were framed. Subsequently, with the creation of Commercial Court at Egmore, the suit was transferred to the file of that Court. It was re-numbered as COS No.221 of 2023.

6. On transfer, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the prayer portion of the plaint alone. The relief of permanent injunction was modified to the following relief:

“a 1) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs.57,00,000/- along with 18% rate of interest from the date f the suit till the realization of the same.”

This application was numbered as I.A.No.2 of 2024. A counter affidavit was presented by the first defendant. He stated that trial had commenced in the suit and it is at the stage of cross-examination of PW1. It was pointed out that due diligence has not been exhibited by the plaintiff. It was further added that the relief for damages had not been reserved in terms of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also pointed out that the Telugu movie 'Jandapai Kapiraju” had already been released several years ago and the amended prayer is time barred one. It was construed by the defendant that the plaintiff is seeking for an additional relief claiming compensation which was without any basis and therefore, the first defendant sought dismissal of the application.

7. The learned trial Judge took up the petition for enquiry. She came to a conclusion that