Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31091
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
Krishnamurthy Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
K.S.Srinivasan, Producer – Respondent
C.R.P.(PD) No.5171 of 2024 | C.M.P.Nos.28959 | 27979 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Abdul Mussawwir, Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Harishankar, Mr.K.Harishankar
Amendment limited to prayer for damages is permissible despite limitation if based on existing pleadings; court’s power under Specific Relief Act and CPC supports such amendments.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, Order VI Rule 17 (Proviso); Order VII Rule 7; Specific Relief Act, Section 40 - Amendment of pleadings - Time barred claims - Plaintiff originally sought permanent injunction but paid court fee corresponding to damages claim - Amendment limited only to prayer for damages - Court empowered to grant damages even if not specifically pleaded - Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 places restriction but does not entirely bar amendment - Delay and limitation are factors to be considered but not absolute bars - Application for amendment allowed with cost penalty - (Paras 9, 13, 14, 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff entered into an agreement for overseas distribution of a Tamil film and claimed damages of Rs.57,00,000/- due to delay in release. Original suit sought permanent injunction restraining release of a Telugu version of the film unless damages paid. The suit was transferred and renumbered multiple times, and amendment was sought to change relief to damages with interest. Trial Court declined amendment finding the claim time barred, leading to present revision.
Findings of Court:
Though the original claim was for injunction, court fees paid corresponded to a damages claim indicating intention. The court holds that amendment limited to the relief portion seeking damages can be allowed under Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act and relevant CPC rules. The restriction under Order VI Rule 17 proviso is not absolute, and delay/ limitation must be considered contextually. Trial Court's order refusing amendment is set aside; amendment allowed with costs.
Issues: Whether amendment of pleadings to change relief from injunction to claim for damages is barred by limitation and proviso to CPC Order VI Rule 17.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasons that where all averments for damages exist and only the prayer relief is amended, such amendment is permissible despite limitation, as the plaintiff is adopting a new approach to an existing cause of action. The court holds that power to grant damages under Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act supports this amendment. Delay and limitation do not constitute absolute bars but are factors for exercise of discretion. (Paras 13-18)
Result: Civil revision petition allowed; amendment allowed with cost penalty; trial to proceed accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts and pleadings regarding suit and delay in film release. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 12) |
| 2. arguments on amendment application and time bar objections. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court’s detailed reasoning on amendment powers, limitation, and relevant law. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. final order allowing amendment and directions for trial. (Para 20) |
ORDER
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 the claim is time barred and therefore, the same cannot be permit
