Amendments to a plaint are permissible to ensure justice and to address all relevant claims, especially when filed within extended limitation periods.

1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant/Plaintiff is seeking amendment of the Plaint as per the Schedule annexed at Exhibit-A to the Interim Application.

2. The amendment which is sought by the Applicant/Plaintiff is in respect of an Article published in the Bar and Bench on 25th June, 2020 which the Plaintiff has claimed constitutes libel against the Applicant/Plaintiff. The amendment is also in respect of the communication dated 27th April, 2021 addressed by Defendant No.1 herein through her Advocate to the Applicant/Plaintiff and his Advocates with copy marked to the Royal Thai Consulate-General, Mumbai, India and The US Embassy, Mumbai (U.S. Consulate General Mumbai) which the Plaintiff has claimed constitutes libel against Plaintiff.

3. Mr. Rohaan Cama, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Plaintiff has submitted that the present suit has been filed in respect of an Article titled “Investment Manager and Author Ashu Dutt lands in cop net for dowry harassment” which had been published on 11th January, 2017 and which the Plaintiff has claimed constitutes libel against him published by the Defendant Nos.2 to 5 who are claimed to be acting at the instance of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff has claimed damages for the loss suffered by and/or occasioned to him on account of publication of the said Article. The Article has been published by the media houses and that is the reason for joining Defendant No.2 to 5.

4. Mr. Cama has submitted that the amendment which has been sought is the same cause of action as in the suit as the Plaintiff has claimed that the further article published by Defendant No.1 in the Bar and Bench on 25th June, 2020 and communication addressed on 27th April, 2020 by Defendant No.1 constitutes libel against the Plaintiff. He has submitted that the amendment being a pre-trial amendment, the Court has leaned in favour of granting such amendments by giving an opportunity to the Defendant to raise her objection to the amended plaint by corresponding amendment in the Written Statement. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahamd and Others , (2008) 3 SCC 717 and a decision of Delhi High Court in S.P. Sehgal Vs. Smt. Vidya Kaul , Civil Miscellaneous, ILR (1990) 1 Delhi 201 in this context. In the latter case before the Delhi High Court, the amendments sought to be incorporated were subsequent events and which were considered by the Court to be appropriate to be allowed in the interest of justice lest the other party should be put to surprise or injustice. The Court held that the real test for allowing the amendment i.e. as to whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy and the party should not be put to injustice. The Supreme Court in Usha Devi (supra) held that merit of an amendment is hardly a relevant consideration.

5. Mr. Cama has submitted that under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, as also held in the above decisions the Court should necessarily allow pre-trial amendment of the Plaint, particularly where as in this case the amendments sought to be incorporated are subsequent events.

6. Mr. Santosh Paul, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant No.1 has vehemently opposed the amendment sought for by the Plaintiff. He has submitted that the Interim Application seeking amendment is clearly barred by the law of limitation. He has submitted that the Interim Application for amendment has been filed beyond one year from the article published in the Bar & Bench which the Plaintiff claims constitutes Libel against the Plaintiff. He has submitted that injustice wou