Rajesh Bindal, J.:-

1. The petitioners-plaintiffs are before this court impugning the order dated 5.7.2013, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by them seeking to amend the plaint, was dismissed.

2. It is a case in which the respondent-Corporation called tenders for contract of two foot over bridges-- (i) G.T. Road, near Bus Stand, Jalandhar and (ii) in front of APJ School, near Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar, vide public notice dated 7.9.2004. The petitioners submitted their tender on 17.9.2004, which was accepted. The agreement was signed on 19.1.2005. In terms thereof, the petitioners were to construct the aforesaid two foot over bridges at their own cost spending about ` 90,00,000/-, however, they had a right to display advertisements thereon for a period of 81 months. The construction of foot over bridges was on Built, Operate and Transfer (for short, 'BOT') basis. As there were certain objections regarding location of the bridge in front of APJ School, near Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, it was shifted to B.M.C. Chowk, Jalandhar. The construction was completed in the year 2008. Before expiry of the agreed period of 81 months, the respondent threatened to demolish the bridge near Bus Stand, Jalandhar without even providing for alternative site. Immediately, the petitioners filed suit for injunction on 5.5.2008. However, during the pendency of the suit, the bridge was demolished. Application for amendment was filed seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondent to provide alternative site. The amendment was allowed on 21.12.2009. While the suit was still pending, the respondent demolished even the second foot over bridge constructed at B.M.C. Chowk, Jalandhar without providing alternative site. The application for amendment was filed to incorporate the relief of mandatory injunction of alternative site for the second bridge. The same was dismissed by the court below on 5.7.2013. The order has been impugned in the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ground on which the learned court below has dismissed the application for amendment is totally erroneous, namely, that in the suit filed, the petitioners had not referred to the bridge for which the relief is being sought and further the cause of action having arisen after filing of the suit, the petitioners may file a fresh suit claiming the relief. Learned counsel submitted that tenders were called by the respondent for construction of two foot over bridges on BOT basis. The petitioners' tender was accepted. There is single agreement signed for both the bridges. In the plaint filed, complete details have been provided. The relief at that stage claimed was for injunction pertaining to one bridge, as the same was sought to be demolished. As during the pendency of the suit, the bridge was demolished, the plaint was amended and relief of mandatory injunction seeking alternative site was claimed. The amendment was allowed. When the second bridge was also demolished, the plaint was sought to be amended to incorporate the relief of mandatory injunction for providing alternative site for the same as well. As per the agreement, the petitioners had right to display advertisement for a period of 81 months. Undisputedly, the same had not expired. It is not even disputed by the respondent that the petitioners had an independent right to file the suit claiming the relief, which is being sought by way of an amendment, however, the same will merely result in multiplicity of litigation as the agreement pertaining to both the bridges is one and relief is also identical, namely, providing alternative sites on account of demolition of bridges already constructed during the currency of the period the petitioners were permitted to display the advertisements. Under these circumstances, the amendment should have been allowed. In support of his plea, reliance was placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sampath K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document