Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Vikas Kamalakar Walawalkar, filed Suit No.1172 of 2005 against the Deputy Salt Commissioner, Union of India, and Mumbai Municipal Corporation seeking a declaration that the suit structure was not illegal and an injunction restraining its demolition. The suit was filed in 2005. In 2016, the plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No.1801 of 2016 seeking amendment to the plaint to add a claim for damages for the alleged illegal demolition of the structure. The defendants (Deputy Salt Commissioner and Union of India) filed Notice of Motion No.2481 of 2016 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action. The court considered both applications together. The main legal issues were whether the amendment was barred by limitation and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected. The plaintiff argued that the amendment arose from the same cause of action and was necessary for the complete adjudication of the dispute. The defendants contended that the claim for damages was barred by limitation as the demolition occurred in 2005 and the amendment was sought in 2016. The court held that the amendment was not barred by limitation because the claim for damages was a consequential relief arising from the same cause of action, and the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action. The court also held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action for declaration and injunction, and therefore could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court dismissed both the Notice of Motion and the Chamber Summons, allowing the amendment and refusing to reject the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Limitation - Amendment seeking to add claim for damages for demolition of structure - Held that the amendment relates to the same cause of action and is not barred by limitation as the claim for damages is a consequential relief arising from the same set of facts (Paras 10-12). B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - Plaint seeking declaration and injunction against demolition - Held that the plaint discloses a cause of action and cannot be rejected at the threshold (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to the plaint seeking to add a claim for damages for demolition of structure is barred by limitation; whether the plaint as originally filed or as proposed to be amended is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for not disclosing a cause of action.
Final Decision
Notice of Motion No.2481 of 2016 filed by defendants seeking rejection of plaint is dismissed. Chamber Summons No.1801 of 2016 filed by plaintiff seeking amendment to plaint is allowed. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Limitation for amendment
- Cause of action
- Rejection of plaint
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Section 3 of the Limitation Act
- 1963
