Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants in the Bombay High Court. The suit was filed on 3rd October 2012. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to incorporate a plea that the period during which the defendant No.1 prosecuted a suit in the Small Causes Court (from 1st October 2008 to 30th September 2010) and an appeal (from 24th December 2010 to 22nd February 2012) should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for computing limitation. The plaintiff argued that the earlier proceedings were bona fide and in good faith. The defendants opposed the amendment, contending that it would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice. The court, after hearing arguments, allowed the amendment, holding that it was necessary for the determination of the real controversy and did not change the nature of the suit. The court also noted that the amendment was sought at an early stage and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. The court directed the amendment to be carried out within two weeks and granted the defendants time to file an additional written statement.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Limitation - Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963 - Plaintiff sought amendment to plead exclusion of time spent in bona fide prosecution of earlier proceedings in wrong court - Court allowed amendment as it did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary for determination of real controversy - Held that amendment sought is bona fide and does not cause prejudice to defendants (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint to incorporate a plea for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the period during which the suit and appeal were prosecuted in the Small Causes Court.
Final Decision
The Chamber Summons is allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint in terms of clause (ii) of Schedule-A to the Chamber Summons. The amendment shall be carried out within two weeks. The defendants are granted time of four weeks to file an additional written statement.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- limitation
- exclusion of time for bona fide prosecution in wrong court
- Section 14 Limitation Act
- 1963
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (05) 36
Chamber Summons No. 1234 of 2012 in Suit No. 1939 of 2012
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. S.A. Bhalwal, instructed by M/s. Vyas & Bhalwal, for the Applicants/Plaintiff. Mr. D.H. Mehta, instructed by Mr. B.S. Nayak, for the Defendant No.1. Mr. H.D. Buch, instructed by Mr. A.B. Desai for Defendant No.3.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
M/s. Hill Top Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint to incorporate a plea for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint to include the period of bona fide prosecution of earlier proceedings in the Small Causes Court for the purpose of limitation.
Issues
Whether the amendment sought by the plaintiff to incorporate a plea under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should be allowed.
Whether the amendment would change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the defendants.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that the amendment is necessary for the determination of the real controversy and does not change the nature of the suit.
Defendants opposed the amendment, contending that it would change the nature of the suit and cause prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
An amendment to incorporate a plea for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is permissible if it does not change the nature of the suit and is necessary for the determination of the real controversy. The court must consider whether the amendment is bona fide and whether it would cause prejudice to the opposite party.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Chamber Summons, the Plaintiff seeks amendment to the Plaint in terms of ScheduleA annexed to the Chamber Summons.
The Plaintiff has only pressed for allowing the Plaint to be amended in terms of clause (ii) of ScheduleA to the Chamber Summons.
The amendment sought to be introduced by the Plaintiff is therefore to the effect that in computing the period of limitation, the period during which the suit filed by the Defendant No.1 in the Small Causes Court at Bombay, being T.E. & R. Suit No. 119/177 of 2008, was prosecuted i.e. from 1st October 2008 to 30th September 2010 and the period during which the Appeal was prosecuted from 24th December 2010 to 22nd February 2012, ought to be excluded.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Suit No. 1939 of 2012 for specific performance on 3rd October 2012. The plaintiff then filed Chamber Summons No. 1234 of 2012 seeking amendment to the plaint. The court heard the parties and allowed the amendment on 10th May 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 14
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17
