Case Note & Summary
The present chamber summons was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the plaint in Suit No. 3709 of 2003. The original suit was filed by Lok Housing & Constructions Ltd. and another plaintiff against Everest Industries Ltd., seeking a direction that the defendant give the second plaintiff a fair opportunity to bid for a property by clarifying ambiguities in the prescribed format of the bank guarantee and granting reasonable time to furnish it. The plaintiffs also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling or transferring the property until such particulars were furnished. The plaintiffs are developers, and the defendant is the owner of land at Mulund (West), Bombay. Under agreements dated 31.7.1990 and 22.6.1993, the defendant permitted the first plaintiff to develop the residential land for a total consideration of Rs.37.15 crores. By a further agreement dated 27.7.1995, the defendant permitted the plaintiffs to develop the property. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had not provided a proper format for the bank guarantee, thereby preventing them from bidding. The proposed amendment sought to include additional reliefs, including a claim for damages for breach of contract and specific performance. The defendant opposed the amendment on the grounds that it would introduce a new cause of action and cause prejudice. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary for determining the real controversy. The court allowed the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000 to the defendant. The court also directed that the defendant would be at liberty to file an additional written statement. The chamber summons was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Leave to Amend - The court considered whether the proposed amendment introducing new reliefs and claims for damages should be allowed. Held that amendments which do not change the nature of the suit and are necessary for determining the real controversy should be allowed, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party that cannot be compensated by costs. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Cause of Action - Amendment - The court examined whether the amendment introduced a new cause of action. Held that the amendment merely elaborated on the existing cause of action and did not introduce a new one, as the facts were already pleaded. (Paras 5-8) C) Civil Procedure - Prejudice - Amendment - The court assessed whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the amendment. Held that the defendant could be compensated by costs and that the amendment was necessary for the complete adjudication of the dispute. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend the plaint to include additional reliefs and claims for damages, and whether such amendment would cause prejudice to the defendant or change the nature of the suit.
Final Decision
The court allowed the chamber summons and permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in terms of the schedule, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000 to the defendant. The defendant was granted liberty to file an additional written statement.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Leave to amend
- Cause of action
- Prejudice to defendant
